Volume 18, Issue 4 - Virginia
STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD
Title of Regulation: 9 VAC 25-260. Water Quality Standards (amending 9 VAC 25-260-5, 9 VAC 25-260-140, 9 VAC 25-260-160, 9 VAC 25-260-170, 9 VAC 25-260-310, and 9 VAC 25-260-390; adding 9 VAC 25-260-155).
Statutory Authority: § 62.1-44.15 of the Code of Virginia.
Public Hearing Dates: January 8, 2002 - 2 p.m. (Glen Allen)
January 9, 2002 - 2 p.m. (Roanoke)
Public comments may be submitted until 5 p.m. on January 31, 2002.
(See Calendar of Events section
for additional information)
Agency Contact: Elleanore Daub, Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 10009, Richmond, VA 23240, telephone (804) 698-4111 or e-mail emdaub@deq.state.va.us.
Basis: Section 62.1-44.15(3a) of the Code of Virginia mandates and authorizes the board to establish water quality standards and policies for any state waters consistent with the purpose and general policy of the State Water Control Law, and to modify, amend or cancel any such standards or policies established. The federal Clean Water Act at § 303(c) mandates the State Water Control Board to review and, as appropriate, modify and adopt water quality standards. The corresponding federal water quality standards regulation at 40 CFR 131.6 describes the minimum requirements for water quality standards. The minimum requirements are use designations, water quality criteria to protect the designated uses and an antidegradation policy. All of the citations mentioned describe mandates for water quality standards.
Purpose: Water Quality Standards establish the requirements for the protection of water quality and of beneficial uses of these waters. The purpose of this rulemaking is to update the statewide ammonia and bacteria criteria to match updates published by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The amendments are needed because EPA has published updates to these criteria for the states to incorporate into their water quality standards. EPA’s updates contain more recent scientific information. All states are required to consider these updates when amending their water quality standards. EPA disapproved Virginia’s fecal coliform bacteria criteria and has specifically required Virginia to update these standards to match EPA’s guidelines. If the new bacteria criteria are not adopted, EPA will promulgate the new criteria for Virginia. The existing ammonia criteria are not disapproved by the EPA but the updates are included in this proposal because these criteria represent the most recent scientific information regarding the toxicity of ammonia.
This provision of the regulation is justified from the standpoint of the public’s health, safety or welfare in that it allows for the protection of designated uses of the water bodies. Proper criteria protect water quality and living resources of Virginia’s waters for consumption of fish and shellfish, recreational uses and conservation in general.
Substance: A new section (9 VAC 25-260-155) is proposed which includes the updates to the ammonia criteria. This section includes EPA’s 1999 freshwater ammonia criteria with acute criteria and chronic criteria for waters with early life stages of fish present and chronic criteria for waters with early life stages of fish absent. The chronic criteria for waters with early life stages of fish present applies unless a specific procedure is followed to make the determination if the early life stages of fish are absent. The procedure to determine whether early life stages of fish are absent is described in the regulation. These determinations of whether the early life stages of fish are absent are implemented via the permit process. If the procedure is not followed or if any additional data are used to make the determination, then a site-specific criterion must be adopted.
Several localities in the northern Virginia area have made the determination of early life stages of fish absent for November through February in the freshwater tidal Potomac embayments. This determination is incorporated into the proposal as an amendment to the special standards section as “y”. It is incorporated as a site-specific standard because the study incorporated additional data to make the determination. The special standard “y” has been added to the appropriate column in the River Basin Section Tables at 9 VAC 25-260-390.
The saltwater ammonia criteria are updated to reflect the same concentration units (mg nitrogen per liter) as the freshwater criteria. In addition, the saltwater ammonia criteria have been recalculated based on the formulas referenced in EPA’s 1989 saltwater ammonia criteria document.
A definition is proposed for primary contact recreation in support of the new bacteria criteria.
The shellfish bacteria criteria are reworded to reflect the National Shellfish Sanitation Commission recommendations for fecal coliform levels in shellfish waters.
The bacteria criteria for swimming waters (primary contact recreation) are updated to include the EPA 1986 criteria recommendations for enterococci and E. coli in designated swimming areas. These criteria apply in all state waters since all waters are considered swimmable. The existing fecal coliform bacteria criterion is changed to match the fecal coliform criterion published by EPA in 1976. This criterion has a “sunset clause” associated with it to phase out the fecal coliform criteria as DEQ collects more data on the new bacterial indicators recommended in 1986 by EPA (enterococci and E. coli).
The time period associated with the new criteria is proposed as a calendar month rather than a 30-day average. This is to reflect the DEQ's monitoring program schedule which is based on monthly site visits, rather than 30-day intervals.
The board’s disinfection policy for sewage effluents is updated in the proposal to reflect the new bacteria criteria.
Issues: The primary advantage to the public is that the updated criteria are based on better scientific information to protect water quality. For example, the updated bacteria criteria (enterococci and/or E. coli) are proven to be better indicators of the risk of contracting a gastrointestinal illness while swimming than the existing indicator (fecal coliform). The updated ammonia criteria may be viewed as less stringent than the existing criteria; however, the scientific database supporting that criteria is better than the one supporting the existing criteria and more accurately portrays the toxicity of ammonia in fresh water. Being less stringent, the new ammonia criteria may result in financial relief for some Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permittees, particularly in the wintertime when early life stages of fish are absent. The disadvantage is that the public may see this as an attempt to “lower the bar” on water quality. The goal is to set realistic, protective goals in water quality management and to maintain the most scientifically defensible criteria in the water quality standards regulation.
A potential disadvantage to the public may occur in the implementation of the new indicator bacteria criteria. The new indicators are more expensive to analyze than the existing criteria. These expenses are outlined under “Fiscal Impacts.” However, the DEQ plans to study the levels at which chlorine disinfection reduces the levels of these bacteria to the levels specified by the criteria. This type of study was done with the existing fecal coliform criteria and that study resulted in most permittees getting a specified chlorine residual limit rather than a fecal coliform limit. If DEQ cannot demonstrate that chlorine disinfection of effluent is sufficient to remove the indicator bacteria to acceptable levels, then sewage treatment plant operators may be required to measure these additional indicators directly in the effluent rather than just measuring for chlorine residual for discharge monitoring reporting requirements.
There is no advantage or disadvantage to the agency or the Commonwealth that will result from the adoption of the ammonia amendments. Many existing permits already contain ammonia limits based on the existing criteria and may not be able to modify their permit to obtain the less stringent limits based on the new criteria because of antibacksliding rules (9 VAC 25-31-220 L). Backsliding of limits is not allowed by the permit regulation when regulations are revised or when existing limits are met.
Regarding the advantages or disadvantages to the agency for the bacteria amendments, limited data indicates that using the new bacterial indicators may result in equal to or greater numbers of waters identified as impaired than those identified as impaired using the fecal coliform indicator. There may be more impaired waters because the new indicator bacteria criteria are much lower than the existing fecal coliform criteria. This may disadvantage the agency financially via the need for development of more TMDLs. The costs of implementation of these TMDLs will be adsorbed by citizens including the agricultural community, municipalities, industries, and localities. These expenses are summarized under “Fiscal Impacts.”
The agency will be disadvantaged financially because the new bacteria criteria will require more monitoring expenses. These expenses are outlined under “Fiscal Impacts.”
Another pertinent matter of interest is that the proposal does not include amendments related to intermittent streams or shellfish use designations as stated in the Notice of Intended Regulatory Action. DEQ and the ad hoc committee discussed alternatives that were revealed after the comment period to meet the needs for the shellfish use designations via discussions with EPA. Also existing procedures were deemed appropriate for meeting the needs for use designations in intermittent streams.
Locality Particularly Affected: These amendments are statewide in nature and will not affect any one locality more than another.
Public Participation: In addition to any other comments, the board is seeking comments on the costs and benefits of the proposal and impacts of the regulation on farm or forestlands. The board also requests comments on whether we should incorporate both of the new indicators in freshwater (enterococci and E. coli) or just adopt one indicator for protection of primary contact recreational uses in freshwater in Virginia. The only indicator recommended by EPA in saltwater is enterococci.
Anyone wishing to submit written comments for the public comment file may do so at the public hearing, by mail, or by email to Elleanore Daub, Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 10009, Richmond, VA 23240, (804) 698-4111, by fax to (804) 698-4522 or email emdaub@deq.state.va.us. Written comments must include the name and address of the commenter. In order to be considered, comments must be received by the close of the comment period.
A public hearing will be held and notice of the public hearing can be found in the Calendar of Events section of the Virginia Register of Regulations.
The board will hold a formal hearing at a time and place to be established if a petition for such a hearing is received and granted. Affected persons may petition for a formal hearing concerning any issue of fact directly relevant to the legal validity of the proposed action. Petitions must meet the requirements of § 1.23(b) of the board's Procedural Rule No. 1 (1980), and must be received by the contact person by January 31, 2002.
Department of Planning and Budget's Economic Impact Analysis: The Department of Planning and Budget (DPB) has analyzed the economic impact of this proposed regulation in accordance with § 2.2-4007 G of the Administrative Process Act and Executive Order Number 25 (98). Section 2.2-4007 G requires that such economic impact analyses include, but need not be limited to, the projected number of businesses or other entities to whom the regulation would apply, the identity of any localities and types of businesses or other entities particularly affected, the projected number of persons and employment positions to be affected, the projected costs to affected businesses or entities to implement or comply with the regulation, and the impact on the use and value of private property. The analysis presented below represents DPB’s best estimate of these economic impacts.
Summary of the proposed regulation. The proposed regulations will establish two additional water quality criteria for bacteria and gradually phase out the current criteria. In addition, the water quality ammonia standard will be less stringent and point sources will be given an option to demonstrate the absence of early life stages of fish in a waterbody in order to comply with less stringent ammonia standards than the proposed levels.
Estimated economic impact. The purpose of the water quality standards is to protect the state waters for designated uses including fish consumption, shellfishing, aquatic life, swimming, drinking water, and conservation in general. The standards include narrative and numerical criteria for physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of water set at levels to protect the use of the waterbody. Pollutants can limit the designated uses of water.
If the concentration levels for a pollutant measured in a waterbody exceed the criteria more than 10% of the time, the stream, creek, lake, or river is classified as impaired. These waters are listed in the 303(d) list of impaired waters and a total maximum daily load (TMDL) must be developed and implemented to bring the waterbody into compliance with the water quality standards. A TMDL reflects the total pollutant loading a water body can receive and still meet the water quality standards. TMDLs are pollutant specific. A TMDL establishes the maximum allowable pollutant loading from both point and nonpoint sources for a waterbody, allocates the load among the pollutant contributors, and provides a framework for taking actions to restore water quality. While the TMDL program has significant implications for the point sources, probably the most significant impact is on the nonpoint sources. This is because point sources are subject to discharge limits under permits issued to them. The 303(d) list and developed TMDLs are submitted to the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review and approval.
Currently fecal coliform concentrations are employed as a bacteria indicator in the regulations to establish water quality standards to protect people from the risk of gastrointestinal illness contracted while swimming. Pollution from both point and nonpoint sources can lead to fecal coliform bacteria contamination of waterbodies. Sources of fecal contamination to surface waters include wastewater treatment plants, on-site septic systems, domestic and wild animal manure, and storm runoff. The fecal coliform is found in the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals; consequently, fecal waste of warm-blooded animals contains fecal coliform. Even though fecal coliform is not pathogenic, its presence in water indicates the potential for contamination by fecal material. Thus, recreational activities in contaminated waters and eating shellfish might be a health risk. Since it is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to test directly for the presence of a large variety of pathogens, water is usually tested for fecal coliforms instead. For primary contact recreational uses such as swimming and kayaking, health risk increases with fecal coliform count in the waterbody. For a waterbody to comply with Virginia regulations, fecal coliform standards for primary contact recreational use must be met.
The proposed changes will update the bacteria criteria designed to protect waters for primary contact recreation activities. According to EPA, the correlation between different bacterial indicators and the occurrence of digestive system illness at swimming beaches suggests that the best indicators of health risk from recreational water contact in fresh water are E. coli and enterococci. Like fecal coliform bacteria, these organisms indicate the presence of fecal contamination. Enterococci are distinguished by their ability to survive in salt water, and in this respect they are more representative for pathogens than the other indicators are. EPA recommends enterococci as the best indicator of health risk in salt water used for recreation and as a useful indicator in fresh water as well. EPA recommends that all states adopt an E. coli or enterococci standard for fresh water and enterococci standard for marine waters by 2003, and consequently disapproved the current fecal coliform standard established in Virginia regulations. Thus, EPA and the Department of Environmental Quality (the agency) are pursuing the adoption of the proposed standards. Adoption of only one indicator would be satisfactory to EPA, but the Virginia Department of Health requests adoption of E. coli and enterococci standards simultaneously for fresh water.
These alternate bacteria are better indicators of the risk of contracting gastroenteritis from fecal contaminated waters than Virginia's current fecal coliform standard.1 Preliminary Virginia data collected by the agency from surface waters show that the water quality criteria recommended for the new indicators are exceeded as often or more often than the fecal coliform criterion. From this preliminary analysis, it seems that the number of impaired water designations will increase if the two alternate bacterial indicators are adopted. The current fecal coliform standard will be phased out over time as more samples are collected from all state waters. According to the agency, it would take about two years to replace the current standard with the proposed one for a specific waterbody since at least twelve data points are required to implement the new criteria. However, the phase-in process for all state waters is expected to take up to 2008.
Testing for two new indicators of health risks is expected to improve the identification of waters that have a potential to contract digestive diseases. Once the identification is made, the quality of these waters is likely to be improved through the TMDL process. Thus, the count of digestive illness occurrences because of the contact with impaired waters is likely to decline, but there is not enough information to estimate by how much.
Monitoring for two additional indicators will increase the analysis costs of the agency. It is expected that the analysis costs associated with E. coli and enterococci will be about $33 per sample. The tests for E. coli and enterococci require different procedures than the test for fecal coliform. Most of the additional costs can be attributed to additional labor requirements to conduct the additional two tests. The agency monitors approximately 800 samples from stations every two months. Thus, the agency’s monitoring costs are likely to increase about $158,400 per year. However, once the phase-in is completed, state waters will no longer be tested for fecal coliform concentrations. The testing cost for fecal coliform is approximately $14.50 per sample.2 Thus, the agency is expected to realize about $69,600 in savings from eliminating fecal coliform testing annually when the phase-in is completed.
In addition, point sources are issued a permit and are required to test water for pollutants. There are 726 pollutant discharge elimination system sewage discharge permittees in Virginia. Most of these permits contain limits for disinfection of chlorine residual in lieu of fecal coliform limits. It is assumed that the waters are free from fecal coliform contamination if there is sufficient chlorine residual. The same practice is likely to continue. However, 222 permits contain fecal coliform limits instead of, or in addition to, chlorine residual limits. This occurs primarily at facilities using substances other than chlorine for disinfection. As mentioned before, testing for two additional indicators is expected to increase the testing costs. If the new indicators are used as the permit limits instead of fecal coliform, this could increase costs by approximately $8,000 per facility per year with weekly monitoring. One major facility with daily monitoring requirements provided a cost estimate of $60,225 per year for testing E. coli and enterococcus. These suggest that the additional cost per sample is likely to be between $154 and $165 for sewage discharge permittees. This estimate is significantly greater than the estimated testing costs to the agency because most point sources do not have laboratories of their own. The required testing frequency varies from once a year to three times a day depending on the source. Based on the frequency data provided by the agency, approximately 24,767 samples are tested by the permit holders every year. Thus, the total testing costs to point sources are expected to increase by about $3.8 million to $4 million per year. On the other hand, the requirement for the fecal coliform test will be phased-out gradually. The fecal coliform test costs incurred by the point sources is estimated to be three times more than the costs to the agency, totaling about $43.50. Thus, the point sources are likely to experience about $1.1 million in annual savings from eliminating fecal coliform test when the transition is completed.
Also, fiscal impacts to the state and nonpoint sources are expected due to the effect the new bacterial indicators will have on the TMDL program. According to the agency, preliminary analysis of bacterial data at 100 sites statewide over the past year indicates that the number of samples exceeding the enterococci standard is 40 percent higher than the number of samples exceeding the existing fecal coliform criteria. It is expected that approximately 102 additional TMDLs will be developed during the next ten years as a result of the proposed criteria. Development of TMDLs requires significant amounts of labor to collect data, to determine land uses, animal densities, crop densities, the number of septic systems, contributions from point sources, and to construct a simulation model. According to the agency, developing a fecal TMDL may require $33,000 to $76,000 depending on whether modeling is needed or not. Half of the TMDLs are expected to fall at the low end and the other half at the upper end of the cost scale. Thus, a cost increase of approximately $5.5 million to develop 102 additional bacterial TMDLs is expected. The agency incurs the development costs, but some funding is provided from the federal government. Currently, the federal government funds about forty percent of TMDL development costs.
Implementation of a TMDL represents significant costs to pollution sources. For example, fencing may be required to prevent direct deposition into water from cattle, a buffer area may be needed to function as a filter, and failing septic systems may have to be fixed. In addition to these, the implementation involves public participation, and staff travel which add to the overall costs. It is expected that a significant part of implementation costs are labor costs. The agency’s total cost estimate for implementing a TMDL in a typical watershed is about $1.4 million. Thus, the total costs for implementation of TMDLs may increase by about $142.8 million over the next ten years. There are various cost share and incentive programs for this program, but the exact amount the state may eventually pay is not known.
The proposed changes will also update the ammonia criteria with the newer standards developed by EPA in 1999. Ammonia is a colorless gas with a very sharp odor and may originate from both manmade sources and nature. High levels of ammonia in lakes and streams might cause health effects from skin contact, drinking water, and eating contaminated fish. However, the focus of the current ammonia standard is to protect aquatic life from toxicity.
Current ammonia standards for fresh and salt water vary for the combinations of pH and temperature levels. According to the agency, recent evidence indicates that temperature is not an important factor in determining acute ammonia standards. The proposed acute ammonia standards for fresh and salt water do not depend on temperature. The proposed standards are based on EPA approved criteria. They are generally less stringent than the current standards and are based on most recent scientific evidence. However, the agency does not expect a significant impact on environment or pollution sources.
Currently, only one TMDL has been developed for ammonia standard. Only a small number of nonpoint sources are limiting ammonia discharges. Thus, the impact on nonpoint sources and the amount of discharges are expected to be small. However, the potential development of some TMDLs may not take place in the future for some waters because the proposed change will relax the standard. The agency does not have an estimate on the number of TMDLs that may not be required due to lower standards. Additionally, antibacksliding rule established in other regulations is likely to mitigate the impact of this proposed change on point sources. The point sources are issued permits for ammonia discharges. About 455 permits contain ammonia limits. Due to the antibacksliding rule, the discharge limits for the point sources cannot be reduced in permits. Thus, current permit holders are unlikely to benefit from this proposed change except in the case of an early life stages absent determination discussed in detail below. However, the antibacksliding rules do not apply to new facilities. If new facilities come on line, they are likely to benefit from the proposed change.
In addition, the proposed fresh water chronic standards will allow different ammonia levels in the waters with and without the early stages of fish present. The proposed default standard for ammonia is the standard for the waters with early stages of fish present, but the source will be given an option to demonstrate that the early life stages of fish are absent to comply with appropriate lower standards. Presence of early life stage is seasonal and may be absent during winter months. The proposed language contains a generic process to demonstrate the absence of early life stages of fish. A group of localities in northern Virginia have already made the determination of the absence of early life stages of fish for November through February in the freshwater tidal Potomac embayments. Since that determination was already performed on a site-specific basis in consultation with the agency rather than according to the generic process proposed, an amendment to the special standards section has been incorporated as a site-specific standard.
The agency believes that the seasonal variations in the ammonia standards will not be subject to the antibacksliding rule and the current permit holders may be allowed to comply with the lower standards during winter months when the waterbody is devoid of early life stages of fish. Since the ammonia standards established in the permits can be relaxed after an early life stages absent determination for a waterbody is completed, some point sources are likely to take advantage of this proposed change.
The treatment technology allows plant operators flexibility in the way they allocate treatment plant capacity between reducing nitrogen discharges and ammonia discharges into water. During the winter months, there is an inverse relationship between ammonia and nitrogen discharged into water. Ammonia contains nitrogen. The first step of the treatment, nitrification process, converts ammonia to nitrate-nitrogen. This process reduces the toxicity contributed by ammonia, but contributes to nitrate-nitrogen discharges. At the second step of the process called denitrification, nitrate-nitrogen from the first step is converted into the harmless gas form of nitrogen and discharged to the air. In other words, ammonia treatment causes an increase in nitrate-nitrogen at the first step, but the total nitrogen discharged into both air and water remains unchanged at the second step. The agency expects that the sources will allocate their limited resources to reduce nitrogen discharges into water when allowed to comply with the early life stage absent ammonia standards. The early life stage absent ammonia standards, where applicable, will allow the sources to remove more nitrogen from waters in the wintertime. This is expected to be an environmentally positive contribution to the Chesapeake Bay.
Additionally, more stringent nitrogen standards are expected to be adopted in 2003 as a separate rule making. Some point sources in northern Virginia are currently upgrading their treatment facilities to reduce total nitrogen discharges to the state waters. Given the substitutability of the ammonia and nitrogen treatment, more stringent standards expected from this separate rule making for nitrogen are likely to strengthen the incentives to demonstrate the absence of early life stages of fish. This approach is especially expected from point sources whose treatment capacity are not sufficient to meet more stringent nitrogen standards expected in 2003. Some of these sources may be able to avoid costs of expanding the treatment capacity to meet higher nitrogen standards or costs of chemicals used in the treatment process that may be necessary to meet more stringent nitrogen standards. These cost savings are not expected to be large.3 However, some permitted facilities may chose not to alter the treatment process and reduce the chance of violating permit conditions for ammonia. Prolonged violations of permit limits may result in fines. The agency does not have information to estimate the number of sources who may choose to make a determination to benefit from lower ammonia limits.
Businesses and entities affected. The proposed changes will primarily affect 222 point sources required to monitor for bacteria concentrations. In addition, a number of point and nonpoint sources discharging into about 102 waterbodies may be affected in the future. However, it is not known at this time which waters will be classified as impaired. Additionally, the proposal to adopt site-specific ammonia standard will affect Alexandria Sanitation Authority, Arlington County, Fairfax County, and Prince William County Service Authority.
Localities particularly affected. The proposed regulations apply throughout the Commonwealth. However, the proposed site-specific ammonia standard is expected to particularly affect Counties of Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, and Prince William.
Projected impact on employment. Anticipated water quality monitoring requirements, development, and implementation of TMDLs are labor intensive and are likely to increase the demand for labor. Thus, there is likely to be a positive impact on employment in water quality monitoring.
Effects on the use and value of private property. The value of businesses providing laboratory services for water quality testing and providing other services in prevention of fecal discharges into state waters may increase due to higher volume of business. The value of private property adjacent to state waters where there is a noticeable improvement in water quality may also increase slightly.
Agency's Response to the Department of Planning and Budget's Economic Impact Analysis: The department has reviewed the economic impact analysis prepared by the Department of Planning and Budget and has no comment.
Summary:
Water Quality Standards consist of designated uses of the water body and narrative and numeric criteria that protect those uses by describing water quality in general terms and specifically as numerical limits for physical, chemical and biological characteristics of water.
The proposed amendments update the statewide ammonia and bacteria criteria to match updates published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bacteria criteria proposed are designed to protect all state waters for primary contact recreation (swimming). The amendments also incorporate a site specific chronic ammonia criterion for the northern Virginia tidal embayments. All of these amendments will be used in calculating Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit limits where appropriate and for water quality assessments per the federal Clean Water Act §§ 305(b) and 303(d) reports.
The proposal does not include amendments related to intermittent streams or shellfish use designations as stated in the Notice of Intended Regulatory Action. Alternatives were revealed after the comment period to meet the needs for the shellfish use designations via discussions with EPA and existing procedures were deemed appropriate for meeting the needs for use designations in intermittent streams. However, the shellfish bacteria criteria have been reworded to reflect the National Shellfish Sanitation Commission recommendations for fecal coliform levels in shellfish waters.
9 VAC 25-260-5. Definitions.
The following words and terms when used in this chapter shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"Board" means State Water Control Board.
"Criteria" means elements of the board's water quality standards, expressed as constituent concentrations, levels, or narrative statements, representing a quality of water that supports a particular use. When criteria are met, water quality will generally protect the designated use.
"Designated uses" means those uses specified in water quality standards for each water body or segment whether or not they are being attained.
"Existing uses" means those uses actually attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975, whether or not they are included in the water quality standards.
“Primary contact recreation” means any water-based form of recreation, the practice of which has a high probability for total body immersion or ingestion of water (examples include but are not limited to swimming, water skiing, canoeing and kayaking).
"Use attainability analysis" means a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of the use which may include physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors as described in 9 VAC 25-260-10 G.
"Water quality standards" means provisions of state or federal law which consist of a designated use or uses for the waters of the Commonwealth and water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses. Water quality standards are to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the State Water Control Law (§ 62.1-44.2 et seq. of the Code of Virginia) and the federal Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1251 et seq.).
9 VAC 25-260-140. Criteria for surface water.
A. Instream water quality conditions shall not be acutely2 or chronically3 toxic except as allowed in 9 VAC 25-260-20 B (mixing zones). The following are definitions of acute and chronic toxicity conditions:
"Acute toxicity" means an adverse effect that usually occurs shortly after exposure to a pollutant. Lethality to an organism is the usual measure of acute toxicity. Where death is not easily detected, immobilization is considered equivalent to death.
"Chronic toxicity" means an adverse effect that is irreversible or progressive or occurs because the rate of injury is greater than the rate of repair during prolonged exposure to a pollutant. This includes low level, long-term effects such as reduction in growth or reproduction.
B. The following table is a list of numerical water quality criteria for specific parameters.
1. For those waters with multiple designated beneficial uses, the most stringent criteria in the following table shall apply.
2. When information has become available from the Environmental Protection Agency to calculate additional aquatic life or human health criteria not contained in the table, the board may employ these values in establishing effluent limitations or other limitations pursuant to 9 VAC 25-260-20 A necessary to protect designated uses until the board has completed the regulatory standards adoption process.
Table of Parameters8,10
| |AQUATIC LIFE |HUMAN HEALTH |
| |FRESHWATER |SALTWATER | |
| |ACUTE2 |CHRONIC3 |ACUTE2 |CHRONIC3 |PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES4|ALL OTHER SURFACE |
| | | | | | |WATERS5 |
|SUBSTANCE4 |µg/l |µg/l |µg/l |µg/l |µg/l |µg/l |
|Acenaphthene | | | | |1,200 |2,700 |
|Aldrin c |3.0 |0.3 |1.3 |0.13 |0.0013 |0.0014 |
|Ammonia See 9 VAC 25-260-155 |See Table 1 |See Table 2 |See Tables 3 and 4 | | | |
|Anthracene | | | | |9,600 |110,000 |
|Antimony | | | | |14 |4,300 |
|Arsenic | | | | |50 | |
|Arsenic III1 |360 |190 |69 |36 | | |
|Bacteria |See 9 VAC | | | | | |
| |25-260-160 and 170 | | | | | |
|Barium | | | | |2,000 | |
|Benzene c | | | | |12 |710 |
|Benzo(a) anthracene c | | | | |0.044 |0.49 |
|Benzo(b) fluoranthene c | | | | |0.044 |0.49 |
|Benzo(k) fluoranthene c | | | | |0.044 |0.49 |
|Benzo(a)pyrene c | | | | |0.044 |0.49 |
|Bromoform c | | | | |44 |3,600 |
|Butyl benzyl phthalate | | | | |3,000 |5,200 |
|Cadmium1 |3.9 (See Note 9) |1.1 (See Note 9) |43 |9.3 | | |
|Carbon Tetrachloride c | | | | |2.5 |45 |
|Chlordane c |2.4 |0.0043 |0.09 |0.0040 |0.0058 |0.0059 |
|Chloride |860,000 |230,000 | | |250,000** | |
|Chlorine Total Residual |19 |11 | | | | |
|Chlorine Produced Oxidant | | |13 |7.5 | | |
|Chlorodibromomethane | | | | |690 |57,000 |
|Chloroform c | | | | |57 |4,700 |
|2-Chlorophenol | | | | |120 |400 |
|Chlorpyrifos |0.083 |0.041 |0.011 |0.0056 | | |
|Chromium III1 |1700 (See Note 9) |210 (See Note 9) | | | | |
|Chromium VI1 |16 |11 |1,100 |50 | | |
|Chrysene c | | | | |0.044 |0.49 |
|Copper1 |18 (See Note 9) |12 (See Note 9) |5.9 |3.8 |1,300 | |
|Cyanide |22 |5.2 |1.0 |1.0 |700 |215,000 |
|DDD c | | | | |0.0083 |0.0084 |
|DDE c | | | | |0.0059 |0.0059 |
|DDT c |1.1 |0.0010 |0.13 |0.0010 |0.0059 |0.0059 |
|Demeton | |0.1 | |0.1 | | |
|Dibenz(a,h) anthracene c | | | | |0.044 |0.49 |
|Dibutyl phthalate | | | | |2,700 |12,000 |
|Dichloromethane c | | | | |47 |16,000 |
|1,2-Dichlorobenzene | | | | |2,700 |17,000 |
|1,3-Dichlorobenzene | | | | |400 |2,600 |
|1,4-Dichlorobenzene | | | | |400 |2,600 |
|Dichlorobromomethane c | | | | |5.6 |460 |
|1,2-Dichloroethane c | | | | |3.8 |990 |
|1,1-Dichloroethylene | | | | |310 |17,000 |
|2,4 Dichlorophenol | | | | |93 |790 |
|2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) | | | |71 | |
|Dieldrin c |2.5 |0.0019 |0.71 |0.0019 |0.0014 |0.0014 |
|Diethyl phthalate | | | | |23,000 |120,000 |
|Di-2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate c | | | | |18 |59 |
|2,4 Dimethylphenol | | | | |540 |2,300 |
|2,4-Dinitrotoluene c | | | | |1.1 |91 |
|Dioxin See 9 VAC 25-260-150 | | | | | | |
|Dissolved Oxygen See 9 VAC 25-260-50 | | | | | |
|Endosulfan |0.22 |0.056 |0.034 |0.0087 |110 |240 |
|Endrin |0.18 |0.0023 |0.037 |0.0023 |0.76 |0.81 |
|Ethylbenzene | | | | |3,100 |29,000 |
|Fecal Coliform See Part II (9 VAC 25-260-160 et seq.) of this chapter | | | | |
|Fluoranthene | | | | |300 |370 |
|Fluorene | | | | |1,300 |14,000 |
|Foaming agents (measured as methylene blue active substances) | | |500** | |
|Guthion | |0.01 | |0.01 | | |
|Heptachlor c |0.52 |0.0038 |0.053 |0.0036 |0.0021 |0.0021 |
|Hexachlorocyclohexane |2.0 |0.080 |0.16 |0.01 |7 |25 |
|(Lindane) | | | | | | |
|Hydrogen Sulfide | |2.0 | |2.0 | | |
|Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene c | | | | |0.044 |0.49 |
|Iron | | | | |300** | |
|Isophorone | | | | |6,900 |490,000 |
|Kepone | |zero | |zero | | |
|Lead1 |120 (See Note 9) |14 (See Note 9) |240 |9.3 |15 | |
|Malathion | |0.1 | |0.1 | | |
|Manganese | | | | |50** | |
|Mercury1,6,7 |2.4 |0.012 |2.1 |0.025 |0.052 |0.053 |
|Methoxyclor | |0.03 | |0.03 |40 | |
|Mirex | |zero | |zero | | |
|Monochlorobenzene | | | | |680 |21,000 |
|Nickel1 |180 (See Note 9) |20 (See Note 9) |75 |8.3 |610 |4,600 |
|Nitrate (as N) | | | | |10,000 | |
|Nitrobenzene | | | | |17 |1,900 |
|Parathion |0.065 |0.013 | | | | |
|PCB-1242 c | |0.014 | |0.030 |0.00044 |0.00045 |
|PCB-1254 c | |0.014 | |0.030 |0.00044 |0.00045 |
|PCB-1221 c | |0.014 | |0.030 |0.00044 |0.00045 |
|PCB-1232 c | |0.014 | |0.030 |0.00044 |0.00045 |
|PCB-1248 c | |0.014 | |0.030 |0.00044 |0.00045 |
|PCB-1260 c | |0.014 | |0.030 |0.00044 |0.00045 |
|PCB-1016 c | |0.014 | |0.030 |0.00044 |0.00045 |
|Pentachlorophenol c |e(1.005(pH) -4.830) |e(1.005(pH) -5.290) |13 |7.9 |2.8 |82 |
|pH See 9 VAC 25-260-50 | | | | | | |
|Phenol | | | | |21,000 |4,600,000 |
|Phosphorus (Elemental) | | | |0.10 | | |
|Pyrene | | | | |960 |11,000 |
|Radionuclides | | | | | | |
|Gross Alpha Particle Activity | | | | |15 pCi/l |15 pCi/l |
|Beta Particle and Photon Activity (formerly manmade radionuclides) | |4 mrem |4 mrem |
|Strontium-90 | | | | |8 pCi/l |8 pCi/l |
|Tritium | | | | |20,000pCi/l |20,000pCi/l |
|Selenium1 |20 |5.0 |300 |71 |170 |11,000 |
|Silver1 |4.1 (See Note 9) | |2.3 | | | |
|Sulfate | | | | |250,000** | |
|Temperature See 9 VAC 25-260-50 | | | | | | |
|Tetrachloroethylene | | | | |320 |3,500 |
|Toluene | | | | |6,800 |200,000 |
|Total dissolved solids | | | | |500,000** | |
|Toxaphene6 c |0.73 |0.0002 |0.21 |0.0002 |0.0073 |0.0075 |
|1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene | | | | |260 |950 |
|Trichloroethylene c | | | | |27 |810 |
|2,4,6-Trichlorophenol c | | | | |21 |65 |
|2-(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy) | | | | |50 | |
|propionic acid (Silvex) | | | | | | |
|Tributyltin |0.46 |0.026 |0.36 |0.001 | | |
|Vinyl Chloride c | | | | |20 |5,300 |
|Zinc1 |120 (See Note 9) |110 (See Note 9) |95 |86 |5,000** | |
NOTES:
* = Hardness as calcium carbonate mg/l CaCO3 . The minimum hardness allowed for use in this equation shall not be less than 25 mg/l, as calcium carbonate, even if the actual ambient hardness is less than 25 mg/l as calcium carbonate. The maximum hardness value for use in this equation shall not exceed 400 mg/l as calcium carbonate, even if the actual ambient hardness is greater than 400 mg/l as calcium carbonate.
** = To maintain acceptable taste, odor or aesthetic quality of drinking water.
c = Known or suspected carcinogen, human health standards are for a risk level of 10-5.
1 = All metals shall be measured as dissolved. All aquatic life criteria for metals apply to the biologically available form of the metal. Metals measured as dissolved shall be considered to be biologically available, or, because local receiving water characteristics may otherwise affect the biological availability of the metal, the biologically available equivalent measurement of the metal can be further defined by determining a Water Effect Ratio (WER) and multiplying the numerical value shown in 9 VAC 25-260-140 B by the WER. Refer to 9 VAC 25-260-140 F.
2 = One hour average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years on the average.
3 = Four day average concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years on the average except for ammonia. Ammonia is a 30 day average not to be exceeded more than once every three years on the average.
4 = Unless otherwise noted, these criteria have been calculated to protect human health from toxic effects through drinking water and fish consumption.
5 = Unless otherwise noted, these criteria have been calculated to protect human health from toxic effects through fish consumption.
6 = Chronic aquatic life values have been calculated to protect wildlife from harmful effects through ingestion of contaminated tissue. However, the criteria will also protect aquatic life from toxic effects.
7 = Chronic aquatic life criteria applies to methyl mercury. This criteria will protect the marketability of natural resources, e.g., fish and shellfish.
8 = See 9 VAC 25-260-310 for additional standards or effluent limits which are site-specific.
9 = Freshwater aquatic life criteria for these metals are expressed as a function of total hardness as CaCO sub3 (mg/l), and as a function of the pollutant's water effect ratio (WER) as defined in 9 VAC 25-260-140 F. The equations are provided in the matrix below. To maintain consistency when using these equations to calculate criteria, intermediate calculations should be rounded to four significant digits and the final criterion's value should be rounded to two significant digits. Values displayed above in the table are examples and correspond to a total hardness of 100 mg/l and a water effect ratio of 1.0.
Acute criterion=WER exp(mA [ln(hardness*)]+bA)
Chronic criterion=WER exp(mC [ln(hardness*)]+bC)
| |mA |bA |mC |bC |
|Cadmium |1.128 |-3.828 |0.7852 |-3.490 |
|Chromium (III) |0.8190 |3.688 |0.8190 |1.561 |
|Copper |0.9422 |-1.464 |0.8545 |-1.465 |
|Lead |1.273 |-1.084 |1.273 |-3.259 |
|Nickel |0.8460 |1.312 |0.8460 |-0.8840 |
|Silver |1.72 |-6.52 |..... |..... |
|Zinc |0.8473 |0.8604 |0.8473 |0.7614 |
Note: The term exp represents the base e exponential function.
10 = The flows listed below are default design flows for calculating steady state waste load allocations unless statistically valid methods are employed which demonstrate compliance with the duration and return frequency of the water quality criteria.
Aquatic Life:
Acute criteria 1Q10
Chronic criteria 7Q10
Chronic criteria (ammonia) 30Q10
Human Health:
Non-carcinogens 30Q5
Carcinogens Harmonic mean (An exception to this is for the carcinogen dioxin. The applicable stream flow for dioxin is listed in 9 VAC 25-260-150 B.)
The following are defined for this section:
"1Q10" means the lowest flow averaged over a period of one day which on a statistical basis can be expected to occur once every 10 climatic years.
"7Q10" means the lowest flow averaged over a period of seven consecutive days that can be statistically expected to occur once every 10 climatic years.
"30Q5" means the lowest flow averaged over a period of 30 consecutive days that can be statistically expected to occur once every five climatic years.
"30Q10" means the lowest flow averaged over a period of 30 consecutive days that can be statistically expected to occur once every 10 climactic years.
"Averaged" means an arithmetic mean.
"Climatic year" means a year beginning on April 1 and ending on March 31.
TABLE 1***
Acute Ammonia Criteria for Freshwater
Total Ammonia (mg/liter)****
Temperature (°C)
|pH |0 C |5 C |10 C |15 C |20 C |25 C |30 C |
|6.50 |35 |33 |31 |30 |29 |29 |29 |
|6.75 |32 |30 |28 |27 |27 |26 |26 |
|7.00 |28 |26 |25 |24 |23 |23 |23 |
|7.25 |23 |22 |20 |19.7 |19.2 |19.0 |19 |
|7.50 |17.4 |16.3 |15.5 |14.9 |14.6 |14.5 |14.5 |
|7.75 |12.2 |11.4 |10.9 |10.5 |10.3 |10.2 |10.3 |
|8.00 |8.0 |7.5 |7.1 |6.9 |6.8 |6.8 |7.0 |
|8.25 |4.5 |4.2 |4.1 |4.0 |3.9 |4.0 |4.1 |
|8.50 |2.6 |2.4 |2.3 |2.3 |2.3 |2.4 |2.6 |
|8.75 |1.47 |1.40 |1.37 |1.38 |1.42 |1.52 |1.66 |
|9.00 |0.86 |0.83 |0.83 |0.86 |0.91 |1.01 |1.16 |
TABLE 2***
Chronic Ammonia Criteria for Freshwater
Total Ammonia (mg/liter)****
Temperature (°C)
|pH |0 C |5 C |10 C |15 C |20 C |25 C |30 C |
|6.50 |3.02 |2.82 |2.66 |2.59 |2.53 |2.5 |2.5 |
|6.75 |3.02 |2.82 |2.66 |2.59 |2.53 |2.5 |2.5 |
|7.00 |3.02 |2.82 |2.66 |2.59 |2.53 |2.5 |2.5 |
|7.25 |3.02 |2.82 |2.66 |2.59 |2.53 |2.5 |2.5 |
|7.50 |3.02 |2.82 |2.66 |2.59 |2.53 |2.5 |2.5 |
|7.75 |2.80 |2.60 |2.47 |2.38 |2.35 |2.3 |2.4 |
|8.00 |1.82 |1.71 |1.62 |1.57 |1.55 |1.56 |1.59 |
|8.25 |1.03 |0.97 |0.93 |0.91 |0.90 |0.91 |0.95 |
|8.50 |0.58 |0.55 |0.53 |0.53 |0.53 |0.55 |0.58 |
|8.75 |0.34 |0.32 |0.31 |0.31 |0.32 |0.35 |0.38 |
|9.00 |0.20 |0.19 |0.19 |0.20 |0.21 |0.23 |0.27 |
TABLE 3
Acute Ammonia Criteria for Saltwater
Total Ammonia (mg/liter)****
Temperature (°C)
|pH |0 C |5 C |10 C |15 C |20 C |25 C |30 C |35 C |
Salinity = 10 g/kg
|7.0 |270 |191 |131 |92 |62 |44 |29 |21 |
|7.2 |175 |121 |83 |58 |40 |27 |19 |13 |
|7.4 |110 |77 |52 |35 |25 |17 |12 |8.3 |
|7.6 |69 |48 |33 |23 |16 |11 |7.7 |5.6 |
|7.8 |44 |31 |21 |15 |10 |7.1 |5.0 |3.5 |
|8.0 |27 |19 |13 |9.4 |6.4 |4.6 |3.1 |2.3 |
|8.2 |18 |12 |8.5 |5.8 |4.2 |2.9 |2.1 |1.5 |
|8.4 |11 |7.9 |5.4 |3.7 |2.7 |1.9 |1.4 |1.0 |
|8.6 |7.3 |5.0 |3.5 |2.5 |1.8 |1.3 |0.98 |0.75 |
|8.8 |4.6 |3.3 |2.3 |1.7 |1.2 |0.92 |0.71 |0.56 |
|9.0 |2.9 |2.1 |1.5 |1.1 |0.85 |0.67 |0.52 |0.44 |
Acute Ammonia Criteria for Saltwater
Total Ammonia (mg/l)****
Temperature (°C)
|pH |0 C |5 C |10 C |15 C |20 C |25 C |30 C |35 C |
Salinity = 20 g/kg
|7.0 |291 |200 |137 |96 |64 |44 |31 |21 |
|7.2 |183 |125 |87 |60 |42 |29 |20 |14 |
|7.4 |116 |79 |54 |37 |27 |18 |12 |8.7 |
|7.6 |73 |50 |35 |23 |17 |11 |7.9 |5.6 |
|7.8 |46 |31 |23 |15 |11 |7.5 |5.2 |3.5 |
|8.0 |29 |20 |14 |9.8 |6.7 |4.8 |3.3 |2.3 |
|8.2 |19 |13 |8.9 |6.2 |4.4 |3.1 |2.1 |1.6 |
|8.4 |12 |8.1 |5.6 |4.0 |2.9 |2.0 |1.5 |1.1 |
|8.6 |7.5 |5.2 |3.7 |2.7 |1.9 |1.4 |1.0 |0.77 |
|8.8 |4.8 |3.3 |2.5 |1.7 |1.3 |0.94 |0.73 |0.56 |
|9.0 |3.1 |2.3 |1.6 |1.2 |0.87 |0.69 |0.54 |0.44 |
Acute Ammonia Criteria for Saltwater
Total Ammonia (mg/l)****
Temperature (°C)
|pH |0 C |5 C |10 C |15 C |20 C |25 C |30 C |35 C |
Salinity = 30 g/kg
|7.0 |312 |208 |148 |102 |71 |48 |33 |23 |
|7.2 |196 |135 |94 |64 |44 |31 |21 |15 |
|7.4 |125 |85 |58 |40 |27 |19 |13 |9.4 |
|7.6 |79 |54 |37 |25 |21 |12 |8.5 |6.0 |
|7.8 |50 |33 |23 |16 |11 |7.9 |5.4 |3.7 |
|8.0 |31 |21 |15 |10 |7.3 |5.0 |3.5 |2.5 |
|8.2 |20 |14 |9.6 |6.7 |4.6 |3.3 |2.3 |1.7 |
|8.4 |12.7 |8.7 |6.0 |4.2 |2.9 |2.1 |1.6 |1.1 |
|8.6 |8.1 |5.6 |4.0 |2.7 |2.0 |1.4 |1.1 |0.81 |
|8.8 |5.2 |3.5 |2.5 |1.8 |1.3 |1.0 |0.75 |0.58 |
|9.0 |3.3 |2.3 |1.7 |1.2 |0.94 |0.71 |0.56 |0.46 |
TABLE 4
Chronic Ammonia Criteria for Saltwater
Total Ammonia (mg/l)****
Temperature (°C)
|pH |0 C |5 C |10 C |15 C |20 C |25 C |30 C |35 C |
Salinity = 10 g/kg
|7.0 |41 |29 |20 |14 |9.4 |6.6 |4.4 |3.1 |
|7.2 |26 |18 |12 |8.7 |5.9 |4.1 |2.8 |2.0 |
|7.4 |17 |12 |7.8 |5.3 |3.7 |2.6 |1.8 |1.2 |
|7.6 |10 |7.2 |5.0 |3.4 |2.4 |1.7 |1.2 |0.84 |
|7.8 |6.6 |4.7 |3.1 |2.2 |1.5 |1.1 |0.75 |0.53 |
|8.0 |4.1 |2.9 |2.0 |1.4 |0.97 |0.69 |0.47 |0.34 |
|8.2 |2.7 |1.8 |1.3 |0.87 |0.62 |0.44 |0.31 |0.23 |
|8.4 |1.7 |1.2 |0.81 |0.56 |0.41 |0.29 |0.21 |0.16 |
|8.6 |1.1 |0.75 |0.53 |0.37 |0.27 |0.20 |0.15 |0.11 |
|8.8 |0.69 |0.50 |0.34 |0.25 |0.18 |0.14 |0.11 |0.08 |
|9.0 |0.44 |0.31 |0.23 |0.17 |0.13 |0.10 |0.08 |0.07 |
Chronic Ammonia Criteria for Saltwater
Total Ammonia (mg/l)****
Temperature (°C)
|pH |0 C |5 C |10 C |15 C |20 C |25 C |30 C |35 C |
Salinity = 20 g/kg
|7.0 |44 |30 |21 |14 |9.7 |6.6 |4.7 |3.1 |
|7.2 |27 |19 |13 |9.0 |6.2 |4.4 |3.0 |2.1 |
|7.4 |18 |12 |8.1 |5.6 |4.1 |2.7 |1.9 |1.3 |
|7.6 |11 |7.5 |5.3 |3.4 |2.5 |1.7 |1.2 |0.84 |
|7.8 |6.9 |4.7 |3.4 |2.3 |1.6 |1.1 |0.78 |0.53 |
|8.0 |4.4 |3.0 |2.1 |1.5 |1.0 |0.72 |0.50 |0.34 |
|8.2 |2.8 |1.9 |1.3 |0.94 |0.66 |0.47 |0.31 |0.24 |
|8.4 |1.8 |1.2 |0.84 |0.59 |0.44 |0.30 |0.22 |0.16 |
|8.6 |1.1 |0.78 |0.56 |0.41 |0.28 |0.20 |0.15 |0.12 |
|8.8 |0.72 |0.50 |0.37 |0.26 |0.19 |0.14 |0.11 |0.08 |
|9.0 |0.47 |0.34 |0.24 |0.18 |0.13 |0.10 |0.08 |0.07 |
Chronic Ammonia Criteria for Saltwater
Total Ammonia (mg/l)****
Temperature (°C)
|pH |0 C |5 C |10 C |15 C |20 C |25 C |30 C |35 C |
Salinity = 30 g/kg
|7.0 |47 |31 |22 |15 |11 |7.2 |5.0 |3.4 |
|7.2 |29 |20 |14 |9.7 |6.6 |4.7 |3.1 |2.2 |
|7.4 |19 |13 |8.7 |5.9 |4.1 |2.9 |2.0 |1.4 |
|7.6 |12 |8.1 |5.6 |3.7 |3.1 |1.8 |1.3 |0.90 |
|7.8 |7.5 |5.0 |3.4 |2.4 |1.7 |1.2 |0.81 |0.56 |
|8.0 |4.7 |3.1 |2.2 |1.6 |1.1 |0.75 |0.53 |0.37 |
|8.2 |3.0 |2.1 |1.4 |1.0 |0.69 |0.50 |0.34 |0.25 |
|8.4 |1.9 |1.3 |0.90 |0.62 |0.44 |0.31 |0.23 |0.17 |
|8.6 |1.2 |0.84 |0.59 |0.41 |0.30 |0.22 |0.16 |0.12 |
|8.8 |0.78 |0.53 |0.37 |0.27 |0.20 |0.15 |0.11 |0.09 |
|9.0 |0.50 |0.34 |0.26 |0.19 |0.14 |0.11 |0.08 |0.07 |
*** To calculate total ammonia values at different pH's and temperature values than listed in Tables 1 and 2 use the following formulas:
Formulas Used In The Calculation of Acute Criteria Values for Ammonia In Freshwater
The one-hour average concentration of ammonia (in mg/l as un-ionized NH3) can be calculated by using the following formulas.
0.52/FT/FPH/2 = acute criteria concentration
where; FT = final temperature
= 100.03(20-T)
FPH = final pH
= 1; 8.0 < pH < 9.0
= (1 + 107.4-pH)/1.25; 6.5 < pH < 8.0
Conversions from un-ionized to total ammonia should be performed using the following formulas;
Total ammonia criteria = calculated un-ionized ammonia criteria divided by fraction of un-ionized ammonia
Where:
Fraction of un-ionized ammonia = 1/(10pKa-pH + 1)
pKa = 0.09018 + (2729.92/(273.2 + temperature °C)).
Formulas Used In The Calculation of Chronic Criteria Values for Ammonia In Freshwater
The 30-day average concentration of ammonia (in mg/l as un-ionized NH sub3 ) can be calculated by using the following formulas.
0.80/FT/FPH/RATIO = chronic criteria concentration
where;
FT = final temperature
= 100.03(20-T)
FPH = final pH
= 1; 8.0 < pH < 9.0
= (1 + 107.4-pH)/1.25; 6.5 < pH < 8.0
RATIO = 13.5; 7.7 < pH < 9.0
= 20.25 x (107.7-pH)/(1 + 107.4-pH); 6.5 < pH < 7.7
Conversions from un-ionized to total ammonia should be performed using the following formulas:
Total ammonia criteria = calculated un-ionized ammonia criteria divided by fraction of un-ionized ammonia
Where:
Fraction of un-ionized ammonia = 1/(10pKa-pH + 1)
Where pKa = 0.09018 + (2729.92/(273.2 + temperature °C)).
**** To convert these values to mg/liter N, multiply by 0.822.
C. Application of freshwater and saltwater numerical criteria. The numerical water quality criteria listed in subsection B of this section (excluding dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature) shall be applied according to the following classes of waters (see 9 VAC 25-260-50) and boundary designations:
CLASS OF WATERS NUMERICAL CRITERIA
I and II (Estuarine Waters) Saltwater criteria apply
II (Transition Zone) More stringent of either the freshwater or saltwater criteria apply
II (Tidal Freshwater), III, IV, V and VI Freshwater criteria apply
The following describes the boundary designations for Class II, (estuarine, transition zone and tidal freshwater waters) by river basin:
1. Rappahannock Basin. Tidal freshwater is from the fall line of the Rappahannock River to Buoy 37 near Tappahannock, Virginia, including all tidal tributaries that enter the tidal freshwater Rappahannock River.
Transition zone is from Buoy 37 to Buoy 11 near Morattico, Virginia, including all tidal tributaries that enter the transition zone of the Rappahannock River.
Estuarine waters are from Buoy 11 to the mouth of the Rappahannock River (Buoy 6), including all tidal tributaries that enter the estuarine waters of the Rappahannock River.
2. York Basin. Tidal freshwater is from the fall line of the Mattaponi River to Clifton, Virginia, and from the fall line of the Pamunkey River to Sweet Hall Landing, Virginia, including all tidal tributaries that enter the tidal freshwaters of the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers.
Transition zone of the Mattaponi River is from Clifton, Virginia to the York River and the transition zone of the Pamunkey River is from Sweet Hall Landing, Virginia, to the York River. The transition zone for the York River is from West Point, Virginia, to Buoy 13 near Poropotank Bay. All tidal tributaries that enter the transition zones of the Mattaponi, Pamunkey, and York Rivers are themselves in the transition zone.
Estuarine waters are from Buoy 13 to the mouth of the York River (Tue Marsh Light) including all tidal tributaries that enter the estuarine waters of the York River.
3. James Basin. Tidal Freshwater is from the fall line of the James River to the confluence of the Chickahominy River (Buoy 70), including all tidal tributaries that enter the tidal freshwater James River.
Transition zone is from Buoy 70 to Buoy 47 near Jamestown Island including all tidal tributaries that enter the transition zone of the James River.
Estuarine waters are from Buoy 47 to the mouth of the James River (Buoy 25) including all tidal tributaries that enter the estuarine waters of the James River.
4. Potomac Basin. Tidal Freshwater includes all tidal tributaries that enter the Potomac River from its fall line to Buoy 43 near Quantico, Virginia.
Transition zone includes all tidal tributaries that enter the Potomac River from Buoy 43 to Buoy 33 near Dahlgren, Virginia.
Estuarine waters includes all tidal tributaries that enter the Potomac River from Buoy 33 to the mouth of the Potomac River (Buoy 44B).
5. Chesapeake Bay, Atlantic Ocean, and small coastal basins. Estuarine waters include the Atlantic Ocean tidal tributaries, and the Chesapeake Bay and its small coastal basins from the Virginia state line to the mouth of the bay (a line from Cape Henry drawn through Buoys 3 and 8 to Fishermans Island), and its tidal tributaries, excluding the Potomac tributaries and those tributaries listed above.
6. Chowan River Basin. Tidal freshwater includes the Northwest River and its tidal tributaries from the Virginia-North Carolina state line to the free flowing portion, the Blackwater River and its tidal tributaries from the Virginia-North Carolina state line to the end of tidal waters at approximately state route 611 at river mile 20.90, the Nottoway River and its tidal tributaries from the Virginia-North Carolina state line to the end of tidal waters at approximately Route 674, and the North Landing River and its tidal tributaries from the Virginia-North Carolina state line to the Great Bridge Lock.
Transition zone includes Back Bay and its tributaries in the City of Virginia Beach to the Virginia-North Carolina state line.
D. Site-specific modifications to numerical water quality criteria.
1. The board may consider site-specific modifications to numerical water quality criteria in subsection B of this section where the applicant or permittee demonstrates that the alternate numerical water quality criteria are sufficient to protect all designated uses (see 9 VAC 25-260-10) of that particular surface water segment or body.
2. Any demonstration for site-specific human health criteria shall be restricted to a reevaluation of the bioconcentration or bioaccumulation properties of the pollutant. The exceptions to this restriction are for site-specific criteria for taste, odor, and aesthetic compounds noted by double asterisks in subsection B of this section and nitrates.
3. Site-specific temperature requirements are found in 9 VAC 25-260-90.
4. Procedures for promulgation and review of site-specific modifications to numerical water quality criteria resulting from subdivisions 1 and 2 of this subsection.
a. Proposals describing the details of the site-specific study shall be submitted to the board's staff for approval prior to commencing the study.
b. Any site-specific modification shall be promulgated as a regulation in accordance with the Administrative Process Act. All site-specific modifications shall be listed in 9 VAC 25-260-310 (Special standards and requirements).
E. Variances to water quality standards.
1. A variance from numeric criteria may be granted to a discharger if it can be demonstrated that one or more of the conditions in 9 VAC 25-260-10 G limit the attainment of one or more specific water quality criteria.
a. Variances shall apply only to the discharger to whom they are granted and shall be reevaluated and either continued, modified or revoked at the time of permit issuance. At that time the permittee shall make a showing that the conditions for granting the variance still apply.
b. Variances shall be described in the public notice published for the permit. The decision to approve a variance shall be subject to the public participation requirements of the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-10 et seq. (Permit Regulation).
c. Variances shall not prevent the maintenance and protection of existing uses or exempt the discharger or regulated activity from compliance with other appropriate technology or water quality-based limits or best management practices.
d. Variances granted under this section shall not apply to new discharges.
e. Variances shall be submitted by the department's Division of Scientific Research or its successors to the Environmental Protection Agency for review and approval/disapproval.
f. A list of variances granted shall be maintained by the department's Division of Scientific Research or its successors.
2. None of the variances in this subsection shall apply to the halogen ban section (9 VAC 25-260-110) or temperature criteria in 9 VAC 25-260-50 if superseded by § 316(a) of the Clean Water Act requirements. No variances in this subsection shall apply to the criteria that are designed to protect human health from carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic toxic effects (subsection B of this section) with the exception of the metals, and the taste, odor, and aesthetic compounds noted by double asterisks and nitrates, listed in subsection B of this section.
F. Water effect ratio.
1. A water effects ratio (WER) shall be determined by measuring the effect of receiving water (as it is or will be affected by any discharges) on the bioavailability or toxicity of a metal by using standard test organisms and a metal to conduct toxicity tests simultaneously in receiving water and laboratory water. The ratio of toxicities of the metal(s) in the two waters is the WER (toxicity in receiving water divided by toxicity in laboratory water = WER). Once an acceptable WER for a metal is established, the numerical value for the metal in subsection B of this section is multiplied by the WER to produce an instream concentration that will protect designated uses. This instream concentration shall be utilized in permitting decisions.
2. The WER shall be assigned a value of 1.0 unless the applicant or permittee demonstrates to the department's satisfaction in a permit proceeding that another value is appropriate, or unless available data allow the department to compute a WER for the receiving waters. The applicant or permittee is responsible for proposing and conducting the study to develop a WER. The study may require multiple testing over several seasons. The applicant or permittee shall obtain the department's Division of Scientific Research or its successor approval of the study protocol and the final WER.
3. The Permit Regulation at 9 VAC 25-31-230 C requires that permit limits for metals be expressed as total recoverable measurements. To that end, the study used to establish the WER may be based on total recoverable measurements of the metals.
4. The Environmental Protection Agency views the WER in any particular case as a site-specific criterion. Therefore, the department's Division of Scientific Research or its successor shall submit the results of the study to the Environmental Protection Agency for review and approval/disapproval within 30 days of the receipt of certification from the state's Office of the Attorney General. Nonetheless, the WER is established in a permit proceeding, shall be described in the public notice associated with the permit proceeding, and applies only to the applicant or permittee in that proceeding. The department's action to approve or disapprove a WER is a case decision, not an amendment to the present regulation.
The decision to approve or disapprove a WER shall be subject to the public participation requirements of the Permit Regulation, 9 VAC 25-31-260 et seq. A list of final WERs will be maintained by the department's Division of Scientific Research or its successor.
5. A WER shall not be used for the freshwater and saltwater chronic mercury criteria or the freshwater acute and chronic selenium criteria.
9 VAC 25-260-155. Ammonia surface water quality criteria.
A. The one-hour average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) in freshwater shall not exceed, more than once every three years on the average1, the acute criteria below:
Acute Ammonia Freshwater Criteria
Total Ammonia Nitrogen (mg N/L)
|pH |Trout Present |Trout Absent |
|6.5 |32.6 |48.8 |
|6.6 |31.3 |46.8 |
|6.7 |29.8 |44.6 |
|6.8 |28.1 |42.0 |
|6.9 |26.2 |39.1 |
|7.0 |24.1 |36.1 |
|7.1 |22.0 |32.8 |
|7.2 |19.7 |29.5 |
|7.3 |17.5 |26.2 |
|7.4 |15.4 |23.0 |
|7.5 |13.3 |19.9 |
|7.6 |11.4 |17.0 |
|7.7 |9.65 |14.4 |
|7.8 |8.11 |12.1 |
|7.9 |6.77 |10.1 |
|8.0 |5.62 |8.40 |
|8.1 |4.64 |6.95 |
|8.2 |3.83 |5.72 |
|8.3 |3.15 |4.71 |
|8.4 |2.59 |3.88 |
|8.5 |2.14 |3.20 |
|8.6 |1.77 |2.65 |
|8.7 |1.47 |2.20 |
|8.8 |1.23 |1.84 |
|8.9 |1.04 |1.56 |
|9.0 |0.885 |1.32 |
The acute criteria for trout present shall apply to all Class V-Stockable Trout Waters and Class VI-Natural Trout Waters as listed in 9 VAC 25-260-390 through 9 VAC 25-260-540.
To calculate total ammonia nitrogen acute criteria values in freshwater at different pH values than those listed in this subsection, use the following formulas:
Where trout are present: Acute Criterion Concentration (mg N/L) = 0.275/(1 + 107.204-pH) + 39.0/(1 + 10pH-7.204)
Or where trout are absent: Acute Criterion Concentration (mg N/L) = 0.411/(1 + 107.204-pH) + 58.4/(1 + 10pH-7.204)
1The default design flow for calculating steady state waste load allocations for the acute ammonia criterion is the 1Q10 (see 9 VAC 25-260-140 B footnote 10) unless statistically valid methods are employed which demonstrate compliance with the duration and return frequency of the water quality criteria.
B. The 30-day average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) where early life stages of fish are present in freshwater shall not exceed, more than once every three years on the average2, the chronic criteria below:
Chronic Ammonia Freshwater Criteria
Early Life Stages of Fish Present
Total Ammonia Nitrogen (mg N/L)
|pH |Temperature ((C) |
| |0 |14 |16 |18 |20 |22 |24 |26 |28 |30 |
|6.5 |6.67 |6.67 |6.06 |5.33 |4.68 |4.12 |3.62 |3.18 |2.80 |2.46 |
|6.6 |6.57 |6.57 |5.97 |5.25 |4.61 |4.05 |3.56 |3.13 |2.75 |2.42 |
|6.7 |6.44 |6.44 |5.86 |5.15 |4.52 |3.98 |3.50 |3.07 |2.70 |2.37 |
|6.8 |6.29 |6.29 |5.72 |5.03 |4.42 |3.89 |3.42 |3.00 |2.64 |2.32 |
|6.9 |6.12 |6.12 |5.56 |4.89 |4.30 |3.78 |3.32 |2.92 |2.57 |2.25 |
|7.0 |5.91 |5.91 |5.37 |4.72 |4.15 |3.65 |3.21 |2.82 |2.48 |2.18 |
|7.1 |5.67 |5.67 |5.15 |4.53 |3.98 |3.50 |3.08 |2.70 |2.38 |2.09 |
|7.2 |5.39 |5.39 |4.90 |4.31 |3.78 |3.33 |2.92 |2.57 |2.26 |1.99 |
|7.3 |5.08 |5.08 |4.61 |4.06 |3.57 |3.13 |2.76 |2.42 |2.13 |1.87 |
|7.4 |4.73 |4.73 |4.30 |3.78 |3.32 |2.92 |2.57 |2.26 |1.98 |1.74 |
|7.5 |4.36 |4.36 |3.97 |3.49 |3.06 |2.69 |2.37 |2.08 |1.83 |1.61 |
|7.6 |3.98 |3.98 |3.61 |3.18 |2.79 |2.45 |2.16 |1.90 |1.67 |1.47 |
|7.7 |3.58 |3.58 |3.25 |2.86 |2.51 |2.21 |1.94 |1.71 |1.50 |1.32 |
|7.8 |3.18 |3.18 |2.89 |2.54 |2.23 |1.96 |1.73 |1.52 |1.33 |1.17 |
|7.9 |2.80 |2.80 |2.54 |2.24 |1.96 |1.73 |1.52 |1.33 |1.17 |1.03 |
|8.0 |2.43 |2.43 |2.21 |1.94 |1.71 |1.50 |1.32 |1.16 |1.02 |0.897 |
|8.1 |2.10 |2.10 |1.91 |1.68 |1.47 |1.29 |1.14 |1.00 |0.879 |0.773 |
|8.2 |1.79 |1.79 |1.63 |1.43 |1.26 |1.11 |0.973 |0.855 |0.752 |0.661 |
|8.3 |1.52 |1.52 |1.39 |1.22 |1.07 |0.941 |0.827 |0.727 |0.639 |0.562 |
|8.4 |1.29 |1.29 |1.17 |1.03 |0.906 |0.796 |0.700 |0.615 |0.541 |0.475 |
|8.5 |1.09 |1.09 |0.990 |0.870 |0.765 |0.672 |0.591 |0.520 |0.457 |0.401 |
|8.6 |0.920 |0.920 |0.836 |0.735 |0.646 |0.568 |0.499 |0.439 |0.386 |0.339 |
|8.7 |0.778 |0.778 |0.707 |0.622 |0.547 |0.480 |0.422 |0.371 |0.326 |0.287 |
|8.8 |0.661 |0.661 |0.601 |0.528 |0.464 |0.408 |0.359 |0.315 |0.277 |0.244 |
|8.9 |0.565 |0.565 |0.513 |0.451 |0.397 |0.349 |0.306 |0.269 |0.237 |0.208 |
|9.0 |0.486 |0.486 |0.442 |0.389 |0.342 |0.300 |0.264 |0.232 |0.204 |0.179 |
To calculate total ammonia nitrogen chronic criteria values in freshwater when fish early life stages are present at different pH and temperature values than those listed in this subsection, use the following formulas:
Chronic Criteria Concentration = (0.0577/(1 + 107.688-pH) + 2.487/(1 + 10pH-7.688)) x MIN
Where MIN = 2.85 or 1.45 x 100.028(25-T), whichever is less.
2 The default design flow for calculating steady state waste load allocations for the chronic ammonia criterion where early life stages of fish are present is the 30Q10 (see 9 VAC 25-260-140 B footnote 10) unless statistically valid methods are employed which demonstrate compliance with the duration and return frequency of the water quality criteria.
C. The 30-day average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) where early life stages of fish are absent (procedures for making this determination are in subdivisions 1 through 4 of this subsection), in freshwater shall not exceed, more than once every three years on the average3, the chronic criteria below:
Chronic Ammonia Freshwater Criteria
Early Life Stages of Fish Absent
Total Ammonia Nitrogen (mg N/L)
|pH |Temperature ((C) |
| |0-7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |
|6.5 |10.8 |10.1 |9.51 |8.92 |8.36 |7.84 |7.35 |6.89 |6.46 |6.06 |
|6.6 |10.7 |9.99 |9.37 |8.79 |8.24 |7.72 |7.24 |6.79 |6.36 |5.97 |
|6.7 |10.5 |9.81 |9.20 |8.62 |8.08 |7.58 |7.11 |6.66 |6.25 |5.86 |
|6.8 |10.2 |9.58 |8.98 |8.42 |7.90 |7.40 |6.94 |6.51 |6.10 |5.72 |
|6.9 |9.93 |9.31 |8.73 |8.19 |7.68 |7.20 |6.75 |6.33 |5.93 |5.56 |
|7.0 |9.60 |9.00 |8.43 |7.91 |7.41 |6.95 |6.52 |6.11 |5.73 |5.37 |
|7.1 |9.20 |8.63 |8.09 |7.58 |7.11 |6.67 |6.25 |5.86 |5.49 |5.15 |
|7.2 |8.75 |8.20 |7.69 |7.21 |6.76 |6.34 |5.94 |5.57 |5.22 |4.90 |
|7.3 |8.24 |7.73 |7.25 |6.79 |6.37 |5.97 |5.60 |5.25 |4.92 |4.61 |
|7.4 |7.69 |7.21 |6.76 |6.33 |5.94 |5.57 |5.22 |4.89 |4.59 |4.30 |
|7.5 |7.09 |6.64 |6.23 |5.84 |5.48 |5.13 |4.81 |4.51 |4.23 |3.97 |
|7.6 |6.46 |6.05 |5.67 |5.32 |4.99 |4.68 |4.38 |4.11 |3.85 |3.61 |
|7.7 |5.81 |5.45 |5.11 |4.79 |4.49 |4.21 |3.95 |3.70 |3.47 |3.25 |
|7.8 |5.17 |4.84 |4.54 |4.26 |3.99 |3.74 |3.51 |3.29 |3.09 |2.89 |
|7.9 |4.54 |4.26 |3.99 |3.74 |3.51 |3.29 |3.09 |2.89 |2.71 |2.54 |
|8.0 |3.95 |3.70 |3.47 |3.26 |3.05 |2.86 |2.68 |2.52 |2.36 |2.21 |
|8.1 |3.41 |3.19 |2.99 |2.81 |2.63 |2.47 |2.31 |2.17 |2.03 |1.91 |
|8.2 |2.91 |2.73 |2.56 |2.40 |2.25 |2.11 |1.98 |1.85 |1.74 |1.63 |
|8.3 |2.47 |2.32 |2.18 |2.04 |1.91 |1.79 |1.68 |1.58 |1.48 |1.39 |
|8.4 |2.09 |1.96 |1.84 |1.73 |1.62 |1.52 |1.42 |1.33 |1.25 |1.17 |
|8.5 |1.77 |1.66 |1.55 |1.46 |1.37 |1.28 |1.20 |1.13 |1.06 |0.990 |
|8.6 |1.49 |1.40 |1.31 |1.23 |1.15 |1.08 |1.01 |0.951 |0.892 |0.836 |
|8.7 |1.26 |1.18 |1.11 |1.04 |0.976 |0.915 |0.858 |0.805 |0.754 |0.707 |
|8.8 |1.07 |1.01 |0.944 |0.885 |0.829 |0.778 |0.729 |0.684 |0.641 |0.601 |
|8.9 |0.917 |0.860 |0.806 |0.756 |0.709 |0.664 |0.623 |0.584 |0.548 |0.513 |
|9.0 |0.790 |0.740 |0.694 |0.651 |0.610 |0.572 |0.536 |0.503 |0.471 |0.442 |
At 15°C and above, the criterion for fish early life stages absent is the same as the criterion for fish early life stages present.
To calculate total ammonia nitrogen chronic criteria values in freshwater when fish early life stages are absent at different pH and temperature values than those listed in this subsection, use the following formulas:
Chronic Criteria Concentration = (0.0577/(1 + 107.688-pH) + 2.487/(1 + 10pH-7.688)) x 1.45(100.028(25-MAX))
MAX = temperature in °C or 7, whichever is greater.
3The default design flow for calculating steady state waste load allocations for the chronic ammonia criterion where early life stages of fish are absent is the 30Q10 (see 9 VAC 25-260-140 B footnote 10), unless statistically valid methods are employed which demonstrate compliance with the duration and return frequency of the water quality criteria.
1. Site-specific modifications to the ambient water quality criteria for ammonia to account for the absence of early life stages of fish shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures contained in this subdivision. Because the department presumes that most state waterbodies have early life stages of fish present during most times of the year, the criteria shall be calculated assuming early life stages of fish are present using subsection B of this section unless the following demonstration that early life stages are absent is successfully completed. Early life stages of fish are defined in subdivision 2 of this subsection. Modifications to the ambient water quality criteria for ammonia based on the presence or absence of early life stages of fish shall only apply at temperatures below 15°C.
a. During the review of any new or existing activity that has a potential to discharge ammonia in amounts that may cause or contribute to a violation of the ammonia criteria contained in subsection B of this section, the department may examine data from the following approved sources in subdivisions 1 a (1) through (5) of this subsection or may require the gathering of data in accordance with subdivisions 1 a (1) through (5) on the presence or absence of early life stages of fish in the affected waterbody.
(1) Species and distribution data contained in the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Wildlife Information System database.
(2) Species and distribution data contained in Freshwater Fishes of Virginia, 1994.
(3) Data and fish species distribution maps contained in Handbook for Fishery Biology, Volume 3, 1997.
(4) Field data collected in accordance with U.S. EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers, Second Edition, EPA 841-B-99-002. Field data must comply with all quality assurance/quality control criteria.
(5) The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E-1241-88, Standard Guide for Conducting Early Life-Stage Toxicity Tests with Fishes.
b. If data or information from sources other than subdivisions 1 a (1) through (5) of this subsection are considered, then any resulting site-specific criteria modifications shall be reviewed and adopted in accordance with the site-specific criteria provisions in 9 VAC 25-260-140 D, and submitted to EPA for review and approval.
c. If the department determines that the data and information obtained from subdivisions 1 a (1) through (5) of this subsection demonstrate that there are periods of each year when no early life stages are expected to be present for any species of fish that occur at the site, the department shall issue a notice to the public and make available for public comment the supporting data and analysis along with the department's preliminary decision to authorize the site-specific modification to the ammonia criteria. Such information shall include, at a minimum:
(1) Sources of data and information.
(2) List of fish species that occur at the site as defined by subdivision 3 of this subsection.
(3) Definition of the site. Definition of a "site" can vary in geographic size from a stream segment to a watershed to an entire eco-region.
(4) Duration of early life stage for each species in subdivision 1 c (2) of this subsection.
(5) Dates when early life stages of fish are expected to be present for each species in subdivision 1 c (2) of this subsection.
(6) Based on subdivision 1 c (5) of this subsection, identify the dates (beginning date, ending date), if any, where no early life stages are expected to be present for any of the species identified in subdivision 1 c (2) of this subsection.
d. If, after reviewing the public comments received in subdivision 1 c of this subsection and supporting data and information, the department determines that there are times of the year where no early life stages are expected to be present for any fish species that occur at the site, then the applicable ambient water quality criteria for ammonia for those time periods shall be calculated using the table in this subsection, or the formula for calculating the chronic criterion concentration for ammonia when fish early life stages are absent.
e. The department shall maintain a comprehensive list of all sites where the department has determined that early life stages of fish are absent. For each site the list will identify the waterbodies affected and the corresponding times of the year that early life stages are absent. This list is available either upon request from the Office of Water Quality Programs at 629 E. Main Street, Richmond, VA, 23219 or from the department website .
2. The duration of the "early life stages" extends from the beginning of spawning through the end of the early life stages. The early life stages include the prehatch embryonic period, the post-hatch free embryo or yolk-sac fry, and the larval period, during which the organism feeds. Juvenile fish, which are anatomically similar to adults, are not considered an early life stage. The duration of early life stages can vary according to fish species. The department considers the sources of information in subdivisions 1 a (1) through (5) of this subsection to be the only acceptable sources of information for determining the duration of early life stages of fish under this procedure.
3. "Occur at the site" includes the species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla that: are usually present at the site; are present at the site only seasonally due to migration; are present intermittently because they periodically return to or extend their ranges into the site; were present at the site in the past or are present in nearby bodies of water, but are not currently present at the site due to degraded conditions, and are expected to return to the site when conditions improve. "Occur at the site" does not include taxa that were once present at the site but cannot exist at the site now due to permanent physical alteration of the habitat at the site.
4. Any modifications to ambient water quality criteria for ammonia in subdivision 1 of this subsection shall not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed, threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of such species' critical habitat.
D. The one-hour average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) in saltwater shall not exceed, more than once every three years on the average, the acute criteria below:
Acute Ammonia Saltwater Criteria
Total Ammonia Nitrogen (mg N/L)
Salinity = 10 g/kg
| |Temperature (C |
|pH | |
| |0 |5 |10 |15 |20 |25 |30 |35 |
|7.00 |231.9 |159.8 |110.1 |75.88 |52.31 |36.08 |24.91 |17.21 |
|7.20 |146.4 |100.9 |69.54 |47.95 |33.08 |22.84 |15.79 |10.93 |
|7.40 |92.45 |63.73 |43.94 |30.32 |20.94 |14.48 |10.03 |6.97 |
|7.60 |58.40 |40.28 |27.80 |19.20 |13.28 |9.21 |6.40 |4.47 |
|7.80 |36.92 |25.48 |17.61 |12.19 |8.45 |5.88 |4.11 |2.89 |
|8.00 |23.37 |16.15 |11.18 |7.76 |5.40 |3.78 |2.66 |1.89 |
|8.20 |14.81 |10.26 |7.13 |4.97 |3.48 |2.46 |1.75 |1.27 |
|8.40 |9.42 |6.54 |4.57 |3.20 |2.27 |1.62 |1.18 |0.87 |
|8.60 |6.01 |4.20 |2.95 |2.09 |1.50 |1.09 |0.81 |0.62 |
|8.80 |3.86 |2.72 |1.93 |1.39 |1.02 |0.76 |0.58 |0.46 |
|9.00 |2.51 |1.79 |1.29 |0.95 |0.71 |0.55 |0.44 |0.36 |
Salinity = 20 g/kg
| |Temperature (C |
|pH | |
| |0 |5 |10 |15 |20 |25 |30 |35 |
|7.00 |247.6 |170.5 |117.5 |80.98 |55.83 |38.51 |26.58 |18.36 |
|7.20 |156.3 |107.7 |74.21 |51.17 |35.30 |24.37 |16.84 |11.66 |
|7.40 |98.67 |68.01 |46.90 |32.35 |22.34 |15.44 |10.70 |7.43 |
|7.60 |62.33 |42.98 |29.66 |20.48 |14.17 |9.82 |6.82 |4.76 |
|7.80 |39.40 |27.19 |18.78 |13.00 |9.01 |6.26 |4.37 |3.07 |
|8.00 |24.93 |17.23 |11.92 |8.27 |5.76 |4.02 |2.83 |2.01 |
|8.20 |15.80 |10.94 |7.59 |5.29 |3.70 |2.61 |1.86 |1.34 |
|8.40 |10.04 |6.97 |4.86 |3.41 |2.41 |1.72 |1.24 |0.91 |
|8.60 |6.41 |4.47 |3.14 |2.22 |1.59 |1.15 |0.85 |0.65 |
|8.80 |4.11 |2.89 |2.05 |1.47 |1.07 |0.80 |0.61 |0.48 |
|9.00 |2.67 |1.90 |1.36 |1.00 |0.75 |0.57 |0.46 |0.37 |
Salinity = 30 g/kg
| |Temperature (C |
|pH | |
| |0 |5 |10 |15 |20 |25 |30 |35 |
|7.00 |264.6 |182.3 |125.6 |86.55 |59.66 |41.15 |28.39 |19.61 |
|7.20 |167.0 |115.1 |79.31 |54.68 |37.71 |26.03 |17.99 |12.45 |
|7.40 |105.5 |72.68 |50.11 |34.57 |23.87 |16.50 |11.42 |7.92 |
|7.60 |66.61 |45.93 |31.69 |21.88 |15.13 |10.48 |7.28 |5.07 |
|7.80 |42.10 |29.05 |20.07 |13.88 |9.62 |6.68 |4.66 |3.27 |
|8.00 |26.63 |18.40 |12.73 |8.83 |6.14 |4.29 |3.01 |2.13 |
|8.20 |16.88 |11.68 |8.10 |5.64 |3.94 |2.78 |1.97 |1.42 |
|8.40 |10.72 |7.44 |5.18 |3.63 |2.56 |1.82 |1.31 |0.96 |
|8.60 |6.83 |4.77 |3.34 |2.36 |1.69 |1.22 |0.90 |0.68 |
|8.80 |4.38 |3.08 |2.18 |1.56 |1.13 |0.84 |0.64 |0.50 |
|9.00 |2.84 |2.01 |1.45 |1.06 |0.79 |0.60 |0.47 |0.39 |
To calculate total ammonia nitrogen acute criteria values in saltwater at different pH and temperature values than those listed in this subsection, use the following formulas:
I = 19.0273S/(1000-1.005109S)
Where I = molal ionic strength of water
S = Salinity ppt (g/kg)
The regression model used to relate I to pKa (negative log of the ionization constant) is
pKa = 9.245 + .138I
pKa as defined by these equations is at 298 degrees Kelvin (25(C). To correct for other temperatures:
pKaST= pKa S 298 + .0324(298 – T °Kelvin)
T (Kelvin = (C + 273.15
The unionized ammonia fraction (UIA) is given by:
|UIA = |1 |
| |1 + 10(pKaST-pH) |
The acute ammonia criterion in saltwater is given by:
|Acute = |.233 |
| |UIA |
Multiply the above value by .822 to get the ammonia-N acute criterion.
E. The 30-day average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg N/L) in saltwater shall not exceed, more than once every three years on the average, the chronic criteria below:
Chronic Ammonia Saltwater Criteria
Total Ammonia Nitrogen (mg N/L)
Salinity = 10 g/kg
| |Temperature (C |
|pH | |
| |0 |5 |10 |15 |20 |25 |30 |35 |
|7.00 |34.84 |24.00 |16.54 |11.40 |7.86 |5.42 |3.74 |2.59 |
|7.20 |21.99 |15.15 |10.45 |7.20 |4.97 |3.43 |2.37 |1.64 |
|7.40 |13.89 |9.57 |6.60 |4.55 |3.15 |2.18 |1.51 |1.05 |
|7.60 |8.77 |6.05 |4.18 |2.88 |2.00 |1.38 |0.96 |0.67 |
|7.80 |5.55 |3.83 |2.65 |1.83 |1.27 |0.88 |0.62 |0.43 |
|8.00 |3.51 |2.43 |1.68 |1.17 |0.81 |0.57 |0.40 |0.28 |
|8.20 |2.23 |1.54 |1.07 |0.75 |0.52 |0.37 |0.26 |0.19 |
|8.40 |1.41 |0.98 |0.69 |0.48 |0.34 |0.24 |0.18 |0.13 |
|8.60 |0.90 |0.63 |0.44 |0.31 |0.23 |0.16 |0.12 |0.09 |
|8.80 |0.58 |0.41 |0.29 |0.21 |0.15 |0.11 |0.09 |0.07 |
|9.00 |0.38 |0.27 |0.19 |0.14 |0.11 |0.08 |0.07 |0.05 |
Salinity = 20 g/kg
| |Temperature (C |
|pH | |
| |0 |5 |10 |15 |20 |25 |30 |35 |
|7.00 |37.19 |25.62 |17.65 |12.16 |8.39 |5.78 |3.99 |2.76 |
|7.20 |23.47 |16.17 |11.15 |7.69 |5.30 |3.66 |2.53 |1.75 |
|7.40 |14.82 |10.22 |7.04 |4.86 |3.36 |2.32 |1.61 |1.12 |
|7.60 |9.36 |6.46 |4.46 |3.08 |2.13 |1.47 |1.02 |0.71 |
|7.80 |5.92 |4.08 |2.82 |1.95 |1.35 |0.94 |0.66 |0.46 |
|8.00 |3.74 |2.59 |1.79 |1.24 |0.86 |0.60 |0.43 |0.30 |
|8.20 |2.37 |1.64 |1.14 |0.79 |0.56 |0.39 |0.28 |0.20 |
|8.40 |1.51 |1.05 |0.73 |0.51 |0.36 |0.26 |0.19 |0.14 |
|8.60 |0.96 |0.67 |0.47 |0.33 |0.24 |0.17 |0.13 |0.10 |
|8.80 |0.62 |0.43 |0.31 |0.22 |0.16 |0.12 |0.09 |0.07 |
|9.00 |0.40 |0.28 |0.20 |0.15 |0.11 |0.09 |0.07 |0.06 |
Salinity = 30 g/kg
| |Temperature (C |
|pH | |
| |0 |5 |10 |15 |20 |25 |30 |35 |
|7.00 |39.75 |27.38 |18.87 |13.00 |8.96 |6.18 |4.27 |2.95 |
|7.20 |25.09 |17.29 |11.91 |8.21 |5.67 |3.91 |2.70 |1.87 |
|7.40 |15.84 |10.92 |7.53 |5.19 |3.59 |2.48 |1.72 |1.19 |
|7.60 |10.01 |6.90 |4.76 |3.29 |2.27 |1.57 |1.09 |0.76 |
|7.80 |6.32 |4.36 |3.01 |2.08 |1.44 |1.00 |0.70 |0.49 |
|8.00 |4.00 |2.76 |1.91 |1.33 |0.92 |0.64 |0.45 |0.32 |
|8.20 |2.53 |1.75 |1.22 |0.85 |0.59 |0.42 |0.30 |0.21 |
|8.40 |1.61 |1.12 |0.78 |0.55 |0.38 |0.27 |0.20 |0.14 |
|8.60 |1.03 |0.72 |0.50 |0.35 |0.25 |0.18 |0.14 |0.10 |
|8.80 |0.66 |0.46 |0.33 |0.23 |0.17 |0.13 |0.10 |0.08 |
|9.00 |0.43 |0.30 |0.22 |0.16 |0.12 |0.09 |0.07 |0.06 |
To calculate total ammonia nitrogen acute criteria values in saltwater at different pH and temperature values than those listed in this subsection, use the following formulas:
I = 19.0273S/(1000-1.005109S)
Where I = molal ionic strength of water
S = Salinity ppt (g/kg)
The regression model used to relate I to pKa (negative log of the ionization constant) is
pKa = 9.245 + .138I
pKa as defined by these equations is at 298 degrees Kelvin (25(C). To correct for other temperatures:
pKaST= pKa S 298 + .0324(298 – T (Kelvin)
T (Kelvin = (C + 273.15
The unionized ammonia fraction (UIA) is given by:
|UIA = |1 |
| |1 + 10(pKaST-pH) |
The chronic ammonia criterion in saltwater is given by:
|Chronic = |.035 |
| |UIA |
Multiply the above value by .822 to get the ammonia-N chronic criterion.
9 VAC 25-260-160. Fecal coliform bacteria; shellfish waters.
In all open ocean or estuarine waters capable of propagating shellfish or in specific areas where public or leased private shellfish beds are present, and including those waters on which condemnation or restriction classifications are established by the State Department of Health, the following criteria for fecal coliform bacteria shall apply:
The median geometric mean fecal coliform value for a sampling station shall not exceed an MPN (most probable number) of 14 per 100 milliliters. Not more than 10% of samples The 90th percentile shall not exceed an MPN of 43 for a 5-tube, 3-dilution test or 49 for a 3-tube, 3-dilution test.
9 VAC 25-260-170. Fecal coliform Bacteria; other waters.
A. General requirements. In all surface waters, except shellfish waters and certain waters addressed identified in subsection B of this section, the following criteria shall apply to protect primary contact recreational uses:
1. Fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 ml of water for two or more samples over a 30-day period, or a fecal coliform bacteria level of 1,000 per 100 ml at any time calendar month nor shall more than 10% of the total samples taken during any calendar month exceed 400 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 ml of water. This criterion shall not apply for a sampling station after the bacterial indicators described in subdivision 2 of this subsection have a minimum of 12 data points or after June 30, 2008, whichever comes first.
2. E. coli and enterococci bacteria per 100 ml of water shall not exceed the following:
Geometric Single Sample
Mean1 Maximum2
Fresh and Transition
Zone Waters3
enterococci 33 61
E. coli 126 235
Saltwater
enterococci 35 104
1 Calendar month average for two or more samples.
2 No single sample maximum for enterococci and E. coli shall exceed a 75% upper one-sided confidence limit based on a site-specific log standard deviation. If site data are insufficient to establish a site-specific log standard deviation, then 0.4 shall be used as the log standard deviation in fresh and transition zone waters and 0.7 shall be as the log standard deviation in saltwater. Values shown are based on a log standard deviation of 0.4 in freshwater and 0.7 in saltwater.
3 See 9 VAC 25-260-140 C for fresh and transition zone waters delineation.
B. Disinfection policy. In waters that receive Notwithstanding the above, all sewage discharges, all the designated uses in these waters shall be protected disinfected to achieve the applicable bacteria concentrations in subsection A of this section prior to discharge. The board's disinfection policy applies to these waters.
1. Sewage discharges in relation to water supply intakes. Discharges located within 15 miles upstream or one tidal cycle downstream of a water supply intake shall be disinfected in order to achieve a fecal coliform geometric mean value in the effluent equal to or less than 200 per 100 milliliters.
2. Sewage discharges into shellfish waters. When sewage discharges are permitted to or within five miles upstream of shellfish waters, they shall be disinfected in order to achieve a fecal coliform geometric mean value in the effluent equal to or less than 200 per 100 milliliters.
3. Sewage discharges into other waters. Sewage discharges into other waters shall be adequately treated and disinfected as necessary to protect all the designated uses in these waters. Generally, these discharges shall achieve a fecal coliform geometric mean value in the effluent equal to or less than 200 per 100 milliliters.
However, the board, with the advice of the State Department of Health, may determine that reduced or no disinfection of a discharge is appropriate on a seasonal or year-round basis. In making such a determination, the board shall consider the designated uses of these waters and the seasonal nature of those uses. Such determinations will be made during the process of approving, issuing, or reissuing the discharge permit and shall be in conformance with a board approved site-specific use-attainability analysis performed by the permittee. When making a case-by-case determination concerning the appropriate level of disinfection for sewage discharges into these waters, the board shall provide a 45-day public notice period and opportunity for a public hearing.
9 VAC 25-260-310. Special standards and requirements.
The special standards are shown in small letters to correspond to lettering in the basin tables. The special standards are as follows:
a. Shellfish waters. In all open ocean or estuarine waters capable of propagating shellfish or in specific areas where public or leased private shellfish beds are present, including those waters on which condemnation or restriction classifications are established by the State Department of Health, the following criteria for fecal coliform bacteria will apply:
The median fecal coliform value for a sampling station shall not exceed an MPN of 14 per 100 ml of sample and not more than 10% of samples shall exceed 43 for a 5-tube, 3-dilution test or 49 for a 3-tube, 3-dilution test.
The shellfish area is not to be so contaminated by radionuclides, pesticides, herbicides, or fecal material that the consumption of shellfish might be hazardous.
b. Policy for the Potomac Embayments. At its meeting on September 12, 1996, the board adopted a policy (9 VAC 25-415-10 et seq. Policy for the Potomac Embayments) to control point source discharges of conventional pollutants into the Virginia embayment waters of the Potomac River, and their tributaries, from the fall line at Chain Bridge in Arlington County to the Route 301 bridge in King George County. The policy sets effluent limits for BOD5, total suspended solids, phosphorus, and ammonia, to protect the water quality of these high profile waterbodies.
c. Cancelled.
d. Aquia Creek. No proposal resulting in the discharge of treated wastes to Aquia Creek will be approved unless the following is provided:
(1) At least 100 days' storage to allow complete elimination of discharges during the low-flow summer months; or
(2) Other treatment, based on sound engineering concepts (preferably with experimental data to show their feasibility), for nutrient removal prior to discharge.
e. Cancelled.
f. Cancelled.
g. Occoquan watershed policy. At its meeting on July 26, 1971 (Minute 10), the board adopted a comprehensive pollution abatement and water quality management policy for the Occoquan watershed. The policy set stringent treatment and discharge requirements in order to improve and protect water quality, particularly since the waters are an important water supply for Northern Virginia. Following a public hearing on November 20, 1980, the board, at its December 10-12, 1980, meeting, adopted as of February 1, 1981, revisions to this policy (Minute 20). These revisions became effective March 4, 1981. Additional amendments were made following a public hearing on August 22, 1990, and adopted by the board at its September 24, 1990, meeting (Minute 24) and became effective on December 5, 1990. Copies are available upon request from the Department of Environmental Quality.
h. Cancelled.
i. Cancelled.
j. Cancelled.
k. Cancelled.
l. Cancelled.
m. The following effluent standards apply to the entire Chickahominy watershed above Walker's Dam:
|CONSTITUENT |CONCENTRATION |
|1. Biochemical Oxygen |6.0 mg/l monthly average, with not more |
|demand 5-day at 20 |than 5.0% of individual samples to exceed |
| |8.0 mg/l |
|2. Settleable Solids |Not to exceed 0.1 ml/l |
|3. Suspended Solids |5.0 mg/l monthly average, with not more |
| |than 5.0% of individual samples to exceed |
| |7.5 mg/l |
|4. Ammonia Nitrogen |Not to exceed 2.0 mg/l as N |
|5. Total Phosphorus |Not to exceed 0.1 mg/l monthly average for |
| |all discharges with the exception of Holly |
| |Farms Poultry Industries, Inc., which shall|
| |meet 0.3 mg/l monthly average and 0.5 mg/l |
| |daily maximum. |
|6. Other Physical and |Other physical or chemical constituents not|
|Chemical Constituents |specifically mentioned will be covered by |
| |additional specifications as conditions |
| |detrimental to the stream arise. The |
| |specific mention of items 1 through 5 does |
| |not necessarily mean that the addition of |
| |other physical or chemical constituents |
| |will be condoned. |
n. No sewage discharges, regardless of degree of treatment, should be allowed into the James River between Bosher and Williams Island Dams.
o. The concentration and total amount of impurities in Tuckahoe Creek and its tributaries of sewage origin shall be limited to those amounts from sewage, industrial wastes, and other wastes which are now present in the stream from natural sources and from existing discharges in the watershed.
p. Cancelled.
q. Rappahannock River Basin.
The following effluent standards (adopted in Minute 17 from the proceedings of the board at its meeting on September 17-18, 1972) apply to all waste discharges to the Rappahannock River Basin above the proposed Salem Church Dam in accordance with subdivisions (1) and (2) below:
|CONSTITUENT |FINAL EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS |
| |(WEEKLY AVERAGE) |
|BOD - mg/l |1 |
|COD - mg/l |10 |
|Suspended solids - mg/l |0 (unmeasurable) |
|MBAS - mg/l |0.1 |
|Turbidity (Jackson Units) |0.4 |
|Fecal Coliform Bacteria per 100 ml|Less than 2 |
|sample | |
|Nitrogen - mg/l |1 |
|Phosphorus - mg/l |0.1 |
(1) After the date of Congressional authorization for actual construction of the dam has been given, all new proposals shall comply fully with the adopted standards of the paragraph above and all existing owners shall immediately commence the necessary planning, financing and design to ensure that facilities are completed prior to final completion of the construction of the dam; and
(2) Any new proposals for waste discharges to the area encompassed by the standards shall provide such conventional treatment that in the opinion of the State Department of Health, the staff and the board, satisfactory advanced waste treatment units can readily be added when funds for construction of the Salem Church Dam have been authorized.
r. Cancelled.
s. Chlorides not to exceed 40 mg/l at any time.
t. Cancelled.
u. Maximum temperature for the New River Basin from West Virginia state line upstream to the Giles--Montgomery County line:
The maximum temperature shall be 27°C (81°F) unless caused by natural conditions; the maximum rise above natural temperatures shall not exceed 2.8°C (5°F).
This maximum temperature limit of 81°F was established in the 1970 water quality standards amendments so that Virginia temperature criteria for the New River would be consistent with those of West Virginia, since the stream flows into that state.
v. The maximum temperature of the New River and its tributaries (except trout waters) from the Montgomery-Giles County line upstream to the Virginia-North Carolina state line shall be 29°C (84°F).
w. Cancelled.
x. Clinch River from the confluence of Dumps Creek at river mile 268 at Carbo downstream to river mile 255.4. The special water quality criteria for copper (measured as total recoverable) in this section of the Clinch River are 12.4 μg/l for protection from chronic effects and 19.5 μg/l for protection from acute effects. These site-specific criteria are needed to provide protection to several endangered species of freshwater mussels.
y. Tidal freshwater Potomac River and tributaries that enter the tidal freshwater Potomac River from Cockpit Point (below Occoquan Bay) to the fall line at Chain Bridge. During November 1 through February 14 of each year the chronic ammonia criterion for early life stage of fish absent shall apply (see 9 VAC 25-260-155 C). This special standard is adopted in accordance with 9 VAC 5-260-155 C 1 b.
9 VAC 25-260-390. Potomac River Basin (Potomac River Subbasin).
Potomac River Subbasin
|SEC. |CLASS |SP. STDS. |SECTION DESCRIPTION |
|1 |II |a |Tidal tributaries of the Potomac River|
| | | |from Smith Point to Upper Machodoc |
| | | |Creek (Baber Point). |
|1a |III | |All free-flowing portions of |
| | | |tributaries to the Potomac River from |
| | | |Smith Point to the Route 301 Bridge in|
| | | |King George County unless otherwise |
| | | |designated in this chapter. |
|1b |III |b, NEW-12 |All free-flowing portions of |
| | | |tributaries to the Potomac River from |
| | | |the Route 301 Bridge in King George |
| | | |County to, and including, Potomac |
| | | |Creek, unless otherwise designated in |
| | | |this chapter. |
|1c |III |PWS, b, NEW-12 |Potomac Creek and its tributaries from|
| | | |the Stafford County water supply dam |
| | | |(Able Lake Reservoir) to their |
| | | |headwaters. |
|2 |II |a, NEW-14 |Tidal Upper Machodoc Creek and the |
| | | |tidal portions of its tributaries. |
|2a |III |NEW-14 |Free-flowing portions of Upper |
| | | |Machodoc Creek and its tributaries. |
|3 |II |b, NEW-12 |Tidal portions of the tributaries to |
| | | |the Potomac River from the Route 301 |
| | | |Bridge in King George County to |
| | | |Marlboro Point. |
|4 |II |b, d, NEW-6 |Tidal portions of the tributaries to |
| | | |the Potomac River from Marlboro Point |
| | | |to Brent Point (to include Aquia Creek|
| | | |and its tributaries). |
|4a |III |b, d, NEW-6 |Free-flowing portions of tributaries |
| | | |to the Potomac River in Section 4 up |
| | | |to the Aquia Sanitary District Water |
| | | |Impoundment. |
|4b |III |PWS, b, d, NEW-6|Aquia Creek from the Aquia Sanitary |
| | | |District Water Impoundment, and other |
| | | |tributaries into the impoundment, |
| | | |including Beaverdam Run and the Lunga |
| | | |Reservoir upstream to their |
| | | |headwaters. |
|5 |II |b |Tidal portions of tributaries to the |
| | | |Potomac River from Brent Point to |
| | | |Shipping Point, including tidal |
| | | |portions of Chopawamsic Creek and its |
| | | |tidal tributaries. |
|5a |III |b |Free-flowing portions of Chopawamsic |
| | | |Creek and its tributaries to Quantico |
| | | |Marine Base water supply dam. |
|5b |III |PWS, b |Chopawamsic Creek and its tributaries |
| | | |above the Quantico Marine Base water |
| | | |supply intakes at the Gray and |
| | | |Breckenridge Reservoirs to their |
| | | |headwaters. |
|6 |II |b, y, NEW-7, 8, |Tidal portions of tributaries to the |
| | |9, 10, 11, 13 |Potomac River from Shipping Point to |
| | | |Chain Bridge. |
|7 |III |b, NEW-7, 8, 9, |Free-flowing portions of tributaries |
| | |10, 11, 13 |to the Potomac River from Shipping |
| | | |Point to Chain Bridge, unless |
| | | |otherwise designated in this chapter. |
|7a |III |g |Occoquan River and its tributaries to |
| | | |their headwaters above Fairfax County |
| | | |Water Authority's water supply |
| | | |impoundment, unless otherwise |
| | | |designated in this chapter. |
|7b |III |PWS, g |The impounded waters of Occoquan River|
| | | |above the water supply dam of the |
| | | |Fairfax County Water Authority to |
| | | |backwater of the impoundment on Bull |
| | | |Run and Occoquan River, and the |
| | | |tributaries of Occoquan above the dam |
| | | |to a point 5 miles above the dam. |
|7c |III |PWS, g |Broad Run and its tributaries above |
| | | |the water supply dam of the City of |
| | | |Manassas upstream to a point 5 miles |
| | | |above the dam. |
|7d |III |PWS, g |The impounded waters of Lake Jackson, |
| | | |Broad Run, and Cedar Run. |
|7e |III |PWS, g |Cedar Run from the Town of Warrenton's|
| | | |raw water intake (just upstream of |
| | | |Route 672) to a point 5 miles upstream|
| | | |of the proposed multiple purpose |
| | | |structure near Airlie (Fauquier |
| | | |County). |
|7f |III |PWS, g |The Quantico Marine Base Camp Upshur |
| | | |and its tributaries' raw water intake |
| | | |on Cedar Run (located approximately |
| | | |0.2 mile above its confluence with |
| | | |Lucky Run) to a point 5 miles |
| | | |upstream. |
|7g |III |PWS, g |The proposed impounded waters of |
| | | |Licking Run above the multiple purpose|
| | | |impoundment structure in Licking Run |
| | | |near Midland (Fauquier County) |
| | | |upstream to a point 5 miles above the |
| | | |proposed impoundment. |
|7h |III |PWS, g |The proposed impounded waters of Cedar|
| | | |Run above the proposed multiple |
| | | |purpose impoundment structure on the |
| | | |main stem of Cedar Run near Auburn |
| | | |(Fauquier County), to a point 5 miles |
| | | |above the impoundment. |
|8 |III |PWS |Tributaries to the Potomac River in |
| | | |Virginia between Chain Bridge and the |
| | | |Monacacy River from their confluence |
| | | |with the Potomac upstream 5 miles, to |
| | | |include Goose Creek to the City of |
| | | |Fairfax's raw water intake, unless |
| | | |otherwise designated in this chapter. |
|8a |VI |PWS |Big Spring Creek and its tributaries |
| | | |in Loudoun County, from its confluence|
| | | |with the Potomac River upstream to |
| | | |their headwaters. (The temperature |
| | | |standard for natural trout water may |
| | | |be exceeded in the area above Big |
| | | |Spring and Little Spring at Routes 15 |
| | | |and 740 due to natural conditions). |
| | | |This section was given a PWS |
| | | |designation due to the Town of |
| | | |Leesburg's intake on the Potomac as |
| | | |referenced in Section 8b below. |
|8b |III |PWS |Those portions of Virginia tributaries|
| | | |into the Potomac River that are within|
| | | |a 5 mile distance upstream of the Town|
| | | |of Leesburg's intake on the Potomac |
| | | |River, unless otherwise designated in |
| | | |this chapter.* |
|8c |III |PWS |Those portions of Virginia tributaries|
| | | |into the Potomac River that are within|
| | | |a 5 mile distance upstream of the |
| | | |County of Fairfax's intake on the |
| | | |Potomac River.* |
|9 |III | |Broad Run, Sugarland Run, Difficult |
| | | |Run, Tuscarora Creek, Sycoline Creek, |
| | | |and other streams tributary to streams|
| | | |in Section 8 from a point 5 miles |
| | | |above their confluence with the |
| | | |Potomac River to their headwaters, |
| | | |unless otherwise designated in this |
| | | |chapter. |
|9a |III |PWS |All the impounded water of Goose Creek|
| | | |from the City of Fairfax's water |
| | | |supply dam upstream to backwater, and |
| | | |its tributaries above the dam to a |
| | | |point 5 miles above the dam. |
|9b |III |PWS |The Town of Round Hill's raw water |
| | | |intake at the Round Hill Reservoir, |
| | | |and including the two spring |
| | | |impoundments located northwest of the |
| | | |town on the eastern slope of the Blue |
| | | |Ridge Mountains. |
|9c |III |PWS |Unnamed tributary to Goose Creek, from|
| | | |Camp Highroad's raw water intake |
| | | |(Loudoun County) located in an old |
| | | |quarry (at latitude 39°02'02'; |
| | | |longitude 77°40'49') to its |
| | | |headwaters. |
|10 |III | |Tributaries of the Potomac River from |
| | | |the Monacacy River to the West |
| | | |Virginia-Virginia state line in |
| | | |Loudoun County, from their confluence |
| | | |with the Potomac River upstream to |
| | | |their headwaters, unless otherwise |
| | | |designated in this chapter. |
|10a |III |PWS |North Fork Catoctin Creek from |
| | | |Purcellville's raw water intake to its|
| | | |headwaters. |
|10b |III | |South Fork Catoctin Creek and its |
| | | |tributaries from its confluence with |
| | | |the North Fork Catoctin Creek to its |
| | | |headwaters. |
|11 |IV |pH-6.5-9.5 |Tributaries of the Potomac River in |
| | | |Frederick and Clarke Counties, |
| | | |Virginia, unless otherwise designated |
| | | |in this chapter. |
| |V |pH-6.5-9.5 |Stockable Trout Waters in Section 11 |
| |*** | |Back Creek (upper) from Rock Enon 4 |
| | | |miles upstream. |
| |*** | |Back Creek (lower) from Route 600 to |
| | | |the mouth of Hogue Creek - 2 miles. |
| |*** | |Hogue Creek from Route 679 upstream 6 |
| | | |miles to the Forks below Route 612. |
| |vi | |Opequon Creek (in Frederick County) |
| | | |from its confluence with Hoge Run |
| | | |upstream to the point at which Route |
| | | |620 first crosses the stream. |
| |vi | |Turkey Run (Frederick County) from its|
| | | |confluence with Opequon Creek 3.6 |
| | | |miles upstream. |
| |VI |pH-6.5-9.5 |Natural Trout Waters in Section 11 |
| |ii | |Bear Garden Run from its confluence |
| | | |with Sleepy Creek 3.1 miles upstream. |
| |iii | |Redbud Run from its confluence with |
| | | |Opequon Creek 4.4 miles upstream. |
|11a |IV |pH-6.5-9.5 |Hot Run and its tributaries from its |
| | | |confluence with Opequon Creek to its |
| | | |headwaters. |
| |V |pH-6.5-9.5 |Stockable Trout Waters in Section 11a |
| |vi | |Clearbrook Run from its confluence |
| | | |with Hot Run 2.1 miles upstream. |
|12 |IV |pH-6.5-9.5 |South Branch Potomac River and its |
| | | |tributaries, such as Strait Creek, and|
| | | |the North Fork River and its |
| | | |tributaries from the Virginia-West |
| | | |Virginia state line to their |
| | | |headwaters. |
| |V | |Stockable Trout Waters in Section 12 |
| |vi | |Frank Run from its confluence with the|
| | | |South Branch Potomac River 0.8 mile |
| | | |upstream. |
| |vii | |South Branch Potomac River (in |
| | | |Highland County) from 69.2 miles above|
| | | |its confluence with the Potomac River |
| | | |4.9 miles upstream. |
| |vi | |Strait Creek (Highland County) from |
| | | |its confluence with the South Branch |
| | | |Potomac River 3.9 miles upstream. |
| |VI | |Natural Trout Waters in Section 12 |
| |ii | |Blights Run from its confluence with |
| | | |Laurel Fork (Highland County) upstream|
| | | |including all named and unnamed |
| | | |tributaries. |
| |ii | |Buck Run (Highland County) from its |
| | | |confluence with Laurel Fork upstream |
| | | |including all named and unnamed |
| | | |tributaries. |
| |ii | |Collins Run from its confluence with |
| | | |Laurel Fork upstream including all |
| | | |named and unnamed tributaries. |
| |ii | |Laurel Fork (Highland County) from 1.9|
| | | |miles above its confluence with the |
| | | |North Fork South Branch Potomac River |
| | | |upstream including all named and |
| | | |unnamed tributaries. |
| |ii | |Locust Spring Run from its confluence |
| | | |with Laurel Fork upstream including |
| | | |all named and unnamed tributaries. |
| |ii | |Lost Run from its confluence with |
| | | |Laurel Fork upstream including all |
| | | |named and unnamed tributaries. |
| |ii | |Mullenax Run from its confluence with |
| | | |Laurel Fork upstream including all |
| | | |named and unnamed tributaries. |
| |ii | |Newman Run from its confluence with |
| | | |Laurel Fork upstream including all |
| | | |named and unnamed tributaries. |
| |ii | |Slabcamp Run from its confluence with |
| | | |Laurel Fork upstream including all |
| | | |named and unnamed tributaries. |
See 9 VAC 25-260-360 B.
FORMS
Site-Specific for Sewage Discharges Equal to or less then 1000 GPD Chlorine Standard Exception Form for Streams with Intermittent Flows (eff. 1/89).
Site-Specific Chlorine Standard Exception Form for Streams with Intermittant Intermittent Flows.
Modified Disinfection Requirements Protocol.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Water Quality Criteria 1972: A report of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria and Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA.
Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, Volume Three, First Edition, 1997, Kenneth D. Carlander, Iowa State University Press.
Freshwater Fishes of Virginia, 1993, R.E. Jenkins and N.M. Burkhead, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
ASTM Standard Guide for Conducting Early Life-Stage Toxicity Tests with Fishes, E 1241 - 88, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition, EPA 81-B-99-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
VA.R. Doc. No. R01-13; Filed October 11, 2001, 4:58 p.m.
1 Source: EPA and the agency.
2 Source: The agency.
3 Source: Telephone conversations with Chris Pomeroy, McGuire Woods LLP, and Clyde Wilber, Greeley and Hansen LLC, representing Alexandria Sanitation Authority, Arlington County, Fairfax County, and Prince William County Service Authority.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- fmr volume 4 chapter 6
- dodfmr volume 4 chapter 3
- fmr volume 4 chapter 9
- dod fmr volume 4 chapter 3
- dod fmr volume 4 chapter 6
- dod 7000.14 r volume 4 chapter 6
- fmr volume 4 chapter 1
- fmr volume 4 chapter 4
- dodfmr volume 4 chapter 4
- dod 7000 14 r volume 4 chapter 6
- virginia lottery pick 4 day
- virginia lottery pick 4 night